Verel Pode

I agree and want this unsealing proposal to proceed, but I also think it'd be worthwhile to consider this alternative proposal to allow derivation of sealed classes: [Proposal: Extension/derivation of...

On second thought, forget my above-mentioned proposal, because it falls into the domain of the .NET Foundation and this means the proposal becomes enormously difficult and time-consuming for non-technical reasons....

> Unseal all, or at least nearly all classes in the framework OK, not every class will be unsealed, says the proposal. Whenever the unseal decision for any particular class...

@MikeHillberg -- oh, pity. It would have been nice to have the "middle ground" option available, especially because Windows is not a theoretical OS. _"Perfect in theory" == "Imperfect in...

@weltkante -- Smart point about the interface reimplementing! Re the protection point: > to truely protect the base implementation. Who is really protecting who? The usual assumption is that it's...

### Performance loss associated with unsealing? So far, nobody here in this repo has complained about a loss of performance/optimization associated with unsealing these WinUI classes, but someone is bound...

@weltkante > I mostly meant "protecting the invariants required by the base implementation to be correct". When programming the programmer makes assumptions, being able to inject 3rd party logic in...

@weltkante -- I wanted to make the conversation lighter while simultaneously communicating valid serious points. I'm certainly interested in your opinion and I understand that you clearly made very good...

@weltkante -- Oh, yes, I see what you mean. Yes, you're right to be bothered about the fact that I ignored this comment of yours: > Your concept of partial...

I wrote: > The child replies: "When not even one single character of the base class .cs file is modified, no bug is introduced in the base class!" @weltkante replied:...