G
Guest
I think one of the major advancements on C# will be the growing support for
Extension Methods and related concepts...
The current syntax involves a static class with static members using a
warping of the "this" concept applied to function parameters. Surely we'll
see more twisting and warping of language semantics as this technology
evolves...
Rather than warp language symantics... It would be more apparently proper to
allow something like:
(** Proposed syntax:
public class global::System.String {
public static string Encrypt(object key) { ... }
}
**)
Something generally synonymous with partial types... saying, hey look, you
can even partialize an existing type. People will ooh and ahh over it... I
can hear you doing it now as you prepare your rebuttle. Initially only static
members would be allowed, but you could then provide support for more things
without ever warping language concepts.
Currently, we have to teach... "this" means "this", unless it's on a
parameter in an extension class, in which case it means "that".
Extension Methods and related concepts...
The current syntax involves a static class with static members using a
warping of the "this" concept applied to function parameters. Surely we'll
see more twisting and warping of language semantics as this technology
evolves...
Rather than warp language symantics... It would be more apparently proper to
allow something like:
(** Proposed syntax:
public class global::System.String {
public static string Encrypt(object key) { ... }
}
**)
Something generally synonymous with partial types... saying, hey look, you
can even partialize an existing type. People will ooh and ahh over it... I
can hear you doing it now as you prepare your rebuttle. Initially only static
members would be allowed, but you could then provide support for more things
without ever warping language concepts.
Currently, we have to teach... "this" means "this", unless it's on a
parameter in an extension class, in which case it means "that".