Talk:Extension method

message: Seems very similar to Uniform Function Call Syntax.
Why not merge the articles? OmerMor (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge With [[Uniform Function Call Syntax]]?

message: The given code snippet is a good example how you can corrupt Unicode strings. It does not not handle characters outside the Basic Multilingual Plane (supplementary characters or surrogate pairs) correctly. If you reverse such UTF-16 character pairs (surrogates), these characters will be truncated. Further reading: http://code.logos.com/blog/2008/10/how_to_reverse_a_unicode_string_in_c.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.92.129 (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  String reverse example 

message: Might be good to have a discussion about the criticisms on Extension Methods, e.g. having new code for existing classes in a different location. Or maybe there are no real downsides?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmwood (talk • contribs) 11:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms/Downsides 

message: Please clarify option 3 ("use aggregation instead of inheritance"). I already added links the words 'aggregation' and 'inheritance', but still the use is not indicated. Jacosi (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify option 3 (aggregation) in 'Problem' section 

message: I removed the link "Code Example", because this link was a dead link. (Link i used Google Chrome)
--Kagurame (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link 

message: Shouldn't "application programmer's interfaces" be "application programming interface"? --Mortense (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programmer's -> programming? 

message: Do all the programming languages in the "Support in programming languages" section support extension methods in the same functional manner, or are they actually different features that happen to have "extension" in the name?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Tomato (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support in programming languages 

message: If Extension methods are object-oriented then there must be something that explains what object-oriented concept they support or that they are. Eric Lippert is a principal developer on the C# compiler team. In The Future of C#, Part Two - Fabulous Adventures In Coding he says:
“Extension methods certainly are not object-oriented. They put the code that manipulates the data far away from the code that declares the data, they cannot break encapsulation and talk to the private state of the objects they appear to be methods on, they do not play well with inheritance, and so on.”
Now can someone provide an authoritative justification saying that Extension methods are object-oriented? Note that Microsoft designed the C# language so they are the most authoritative source for that language. Sam Tomato (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object-oriented 

message: It seems that Java has extension methods also since language level 8.
Here is a stack overflow post:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19976487/explicitly-calling-a-default-method-in-java
And this is from the JSL 8:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se8/html/jls-9.html#jls-9.4.3
Jan Burse (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extension Methods in Java