C#7: Throw Expressions and More Expression-bodied Members

In this installment of my look at C#7, we will take a look at some nice syntactical enhancements, including the first ever community contribution to the C# language implementation. Before we get started, here is a summary of what I am covering in this series on C#7.

Throw Expressions

We have all written code like this1:

I have omitted the exception arguments for brevity, but you should hopefully recognise the sort of sanity checking to which I am referring within the highlighted lines.

With throw expressions, we can now combine assignment, the null-coalescing operator2, and throw to create succinct validation code. This means that the example above can be simplified to not even need the constructor.

The highlighted lines are equivalent to the code we had earlier, but now we are able to use throw as part of the expression. The introduction of throw expressions means that we can now throw exceptions in conditional and null-coalescing expressions, as well as some lambda methods where it was previously not possible to do so. Not only that, but when combined with expression-bodied members, we can write some very expressive yet terse code.

Expression-bodied Members

With C#6 we got expression-bodied members, which allowed us to express simple methods using lambda-like syntax. However, this new syntax was limited to methods and read-only properties. Via the first ever community contribution to C#3, C#7 expands this syntax to cover constructors, finalizers, and property accessors.

If we take the property example we had before, containing our throw expression as part of  property set accessor, we can now write it as:

I won't bother with examples for constructors or finalizers; the main documentation is pretty clear on those and I am not convinced the syntax will be used very often in those cases. Constructors are rarely so simple that the expression-bodied syntax makes sense, and finalizers are so rarely needed4 that most of us will not get an opportunity to write one at all, expression-bodied or otherwise.

In Conclusion

These simple additions to the C# syntax enable us to write terse code without losing clarity, which is always a good thing. Not only that, but we have reached a landmark event; community contributions to C#. This contribution may be a little tame when compared with some of the other features coming in C#7, but it bodes well for the future of the language in its new, open source home.

Next time, we will take a look at the highly anticipated pattern matching. Until then, feel free to leave a comment, or read more about C#7 on my blog and on the official documentation.

  1. Let's ignore the nastiness of throwing exceptions during construction 

  2. You remember Elvis, right?? 

  3. Source: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/articles/csharp/csharp-7#more-expression-bodied-members 

  4. If you find yourself writing a finalizer, I recommend you make sure you really need it; there is probably a better way 

C#6: Support for .NET Framework 2.0 to 4.5

A colleague of mine, Eric Charnesky, asked me if C#6 language features would work in .NET Framework versions other than 4.6. I was pretty confident that the features were almost all1 just syntactical seasoning, I thought I would find out.

The TL;DR is yes, C#6 features will work when compiled against .NET 2.0 and above, with a few caveats.

  1. Async/await requires additional classes to be defined since the Task Parallel Library, IAwaitable and other types were not part of .NET 2.0.
  2. The magic parts of string interpolation need some types to be defined (thanks to Thomas Levesque for catching this oversight).
  3. Extension methods need the declaration of System.Runtime.CompilerServices.ExtensionAttribute so that the compiler can mark static methods as extension methods.

Rather than just try .NET 4.5, I decided to go all the way back to .NET 2.0 and see if I could write and execute a console application that used all the following C#6 features:

The code I used is not really important, though I have included it at the end of this post if you want to see what I did. The only mild stumbling block was the lack of obvious extension method support in .NET 2.0. However, extension methods are a language-only feature; all that is needed to make it work is an attribute that the compiler can use to mark methods as extension methods. Since .NET 2.0 doesn't have this attribute, I added it myself.


You might have noticed that I did not verify a couple of things. First, I left out the use of await in try/catch blocks. This is because .NET 2.0 does not include the BCL classes that the compiler expects when generating the state machines that drive async code. You might be able to find a third-party implementation that would add support, but my brief3 search was fruitless. That said, this feature will definitely work in .NET 4.5 as it is an update to how the compiler builds the code.

Second, I did not intentionally test the improved overload resolution. The improvements mostly seem to relate to resolution involving overloads that take method groups and nullable types. Unfortunately, in .NET 2.0 there was were no Func delegate types nor nullable value types (UPDATE: Nullable types totally existed in .NET 2.0 and C#2; thanks to Thomas Levesque for pointing out my strange oversight here – I blame the water), making it difficult to craft an example that would demonstrate this improvement. However, overload resolution affects how the compiler selects which method to use for a particular call site. Once the compiler has made the selection, it is fixed within the compiled output and as such, the version of the .NET framework has no bearing on whether the resolution is correct4.

Did it work?

With the test code written, I compiled and ran it. A console window flickered and Visual Studio returned. The code had run but I had forgotten to put anything in there that would give me chance to read the output. So, I dropped a breakpoint in at the end, and then ran it under the debugger. As I had suspected it might, everything worked.

Testing under .NET 2.0 runtime on Windows XP
Testing under .NET 2.0 runtime on Windows XP

Then I realised I was still executing it on a machine that had .NET 4.6 and therefore the .NET 4 runtime; would it still work under the .NET 2 runtime? So, I cracked open5 a Windows XP virtual machine from modern.ie and ran it again. It didn't work, because Windows XP did not come with .NET 2.0 installed (it wasn't even included in any of the service packs), so I installed it and tried once more. As I had suspected it might, everything worked.

In conclusion

If you find yourself still working with old versions of the .NET framework or the .NET runtime, you can still use and benefit from most features of C#6. I hope my small effort here is helpful. If you have anything to add, please comment.

Here Lies The Example Code6


  1. Async/await requires the TPL classes in the BCL, extension methods need the ExtensionAttribute, and exception filters require some runtime support 

  2. The Elvis's 

  3. very brief 

  4. I realise many of the C#6 features could be left untested for similar reasons since almost all are compiler changes that do not need framework support, but testing it rather than assuming it is kind of the point 

  5. Waited an hour for the IE XP virtual machine to download and then get it running 

  6. Demonstrable purposes only; if you take this into production, on your head be it