I'm all for extension methods, as long as they don't require too much
syntax, it's simple, there's as little magic as possible, don't break
things and are not invasive in the compiler.
Basically, we haven't decided the syntax yet.
In my opinion it should be as simple as this:
extend SomeClassName {
public void foo () { }
}
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:37 PM, [email protected] <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Thank yout Evan, Luca and Aaron for explanation. I didn't see the archives
> for the historical debates. I agree with you.
>
> At all, with my experience with Python, the Zen says "explicit is better
> than implicit". The overload is a features that facilitate the programmer's
> life, but not the life of compiler maintainers...
>
> What about extensions methods? Already discussed or not implemented yet?
> The .NET Linq was brought to life based on it. Without EM (and generics, of
> course) Linq wouldn't possible.
>
> I imagine that Gee guys can help this discussion too.
>
> _______________________________________________
> vala-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
>
--
www.debian.org - The Universal Operating System
_______________________________________________
vala-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
