Virtual Extension By Inversion of Responsibility (Second Draft)

[Lawrence Kesteloot]

Collin wrote:
> For that matter replacing -> with a . would be even more elegant, if possible.

The -> was my favorite part of your proposal. I want to require as
little context as possible when reading code. If magic is happening, I
want to know about it.

Also, presumably if you're writing code inside a class Foo that has an
extension method, with your proposal you'd have to write something
like:

    this->forEach(...);

It would be extra weird if you got rid of -> and I were allowed to just write:

    forEach(...);

and have the system magically insert "this" as the first parameter.

A better reason to avoid -> is that it might be better used for
dynamic dispatch.

Lawrence