Extension vs defender methods

[Brian Goetz]

>> 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".
> 
> But this feature is also very useful "before the fact"; an interface
> author can use this feature in version0 of his API.

Indeed it can!  

> If we call it "extension method" we better have a credible explanation
> of what it is "extending" from. To the lambda team "extension" makes
> very good sense; but to programmers who see it as a general language
> feature, "extension" is very perplexing. Can't we have a better name
> to describe these "interface methods with default implementation"?

One of the other names that has been proposed is "default methods", which I think is a fairly good name.