Virtual Extension By Inversion of Responsibility

[Brian Goetz]

Quite so.  Or, in other words, these are *static* extension methods, not 
*virtual* extension methods.

On 6/13/2010 12:04 PM, Neal Gafter wrote:
> These options all suffer the same problem that defender methods were
> intended to fix: a subclass cannot override the implementation.
>
> -Neal
>
> On Jun 12, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Collin Fagan<collin.fagan at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> I've put together a draft of a document that postulates an alternate
>> implementation of virtual extension methods.
>>
>> http://www.box.net/shared/r24vvgma5p
>>
>> I welcome any feedback.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Collin
>>
>