Extension vs defender methods

[Llewellyn Falco]

> I wasn't arguing the goodness of the definition, only that it has been defined by the larger programming world, and not by Neal.

> On Nov 10, 2011, at 2:54 AM, Ben Evans <benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Just because a term has gained wide usage doesn't make it necessarily good. E.g. open class, social graph, weakly typed, etc, etc.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Ben
>> 
>> On Nov 10, 2011 10:42 AM, "Llewellyn Falco" <isidore at setgame.com> wrote:
>> In Neal's defense, this isn't him defining "extension method", this is the current definition of "extension method"  in the programming world at large.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:44 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > As Neal said, English is malleable.  If he wants to define "extension method" method to mean extended by a non-author, that's within the bounds of credibility.  We prefer to think of it as "extended after the fact".  (Another way to think of it is that the "extension" refers to the notion of interface; an interface with behavior is an "extended interface".)
>> >
>>