Kenneth Hoff

>This encoding scheme means that methods cannot be overloaded by different extensions for the same underlying type. That means you can't do something like this, which is unfortunate: ```c# public...

Adding to what @En3Tho and I said yesterday. I consider being unable to overload based on extensions to be a fairly huge problem, so I really hope this will be...

> > I consider being unable to overload based on extensions to be a fairly huge problem > > At that point, just wrap the type manually with a new...

>It definitely does. It just doesn't allow things like overloading. But so what? Just name the methods differently. :-) Assuming you still need nominal types to do real differentiation, then...

I think the term `extension` make little sense for the concept that I was describing earlier in this conversation. It's not extending anything, it's just repackaging something else, giving it...

@Perksey The reason for the `for` infix is because you can extend extensions, like this: ```c# public extension BaseExt for Guid; public extension SuperExt for Guid : BaseExt; ``` Add...

Considering params has to be last (I believe) I could see this being feasible, but I don't think they'll do this. As I understood it, params collection is mostly a...

@Perksey >most of the discussions around this proposal will be around the intricacies of how it's lowered That is what this thread is about after all. Syntax-related discussions feels like...

This proposal is already implemented in the compiler

I realize this isn't really intended to add new syntax, but instead make existing syntax work inside collections (.. it's also a PR, and not an issue or even a...