Virtual extension methods: don't call them defender methods, please

[Brian Goetz]

Yes, of course.

As has been stated before, we're openly sharing big chunks of design processes 
that have historically been private.  As a result, ideas are being exposed in 
their raw state, and one should not conclude that the final product will look 
like the raw ideas being thrown around.

"Extension methods" is a better name for public consumption (hey, that's even 
what the strawman syntax used.)  But there's no rule against having some fun 
at work (and maybe even internally within the VM/compiler code and comments.)

Cheers,
-Brian

On 6/16/2010 2:51 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
> Brian,
>
> I'm not qualified to comment on the technical aspects of this proposal,
> but I did want to point out that the "public defender" metaphor only
> works in the US and if the name "defender method" sticks, it will be a
> mystery to most of the world.
>
> Given that Java is not likely to have both static and virtual extension
> methods, I think these could more simply be called "extension methods".
>
> And given that your proposal points out that they can be used not as
> extensions but as an alternative to abstract classes, an even simpler
> name would be "default methods".
>
> David Flanagan
>
> P.S. I'm assuming that my post to lambda-dev will be rejected since I'm
> not a subscriber, so I've cc'ed you directly.