Is implementing a singleton using an auto-property a good idea?

Question

I recently found out about auto-properties and like them quite a lot. At this moment I am trying to use them everywhere where I can. Not really to just be able to use them e

Answer 1

Wrap up + alternative syntax with lambda style (>= C# 6) aka computed property (aka expression-bodied member):

The code is functionally fully equivalent to the answer of Jon Skeet, here again with "Instance". I don´t expect kudos for this, but I think this updated wrapup with explanation at one place is it worth, because this C#6 question and answers extend the old closed thread where variations of Singleton have been discussed.

You could argue the automatic-property-style with an explicitly missing set expresses clearer the intent of a read-only property, but in the end it is style based, and both styles are common in modern C#.

public sealed class MySingleton
{
    public static MySingleton Instance => new MySingleton(); // Assure that instantiation is only done once (because of static property) and in threadsafe way, and as this is an alternative style for a readonly-property, there is no setter
    private MySingleton() {} // Assure, that instantiation cannot be done from outside the class        
    static MySingleton() {} // Assure partly lazyness, see below     
}

Here is all detail and historical reference at one place:

Discussion about lazyness: http://csharpindepth.com/Articles/General/Beforefieldinit.aspx
Simplified summary: The above implementation behaves lazy as long as no other static fields/properties are introduced in the class. (But this is an area which can be .NET implementation-dependent.)

Discussion concerning different implementations of Singleton and thread safety (older C# styles): http://csharpindepth.com/Articles/General/Singleton.aspx

Original thread (closed): Singleton Pattern for C#