Here is the elevator pitch:
Using Code Review to assemble a collection of extension methods for .NET and extracting a library out of it.
Originally I created a separate SE site proposal to achieve this, which got closed since SE isn't created for this purpose. In a general Programmers.SE discussion whether or not creating a library through a democratic process similar to SE is possible, Yannis Rizos pitched the idea that it might be interesting to discuss the same topic on Code Review meta, so here goes ...
The proposal I just created isn't a typical SE site. It is inspired by extensionmethod.net which attempts to create a listing of interesting .NET extension methods. The main problem this site has at the moment is moderation. It is my belief that the SE platform is perfectly suitable to do the forms of moderation which extensionmethod.net is missing.
Why would it be suitable on Code Review?
The basic idea fits the Code Review format. Code is posted, reviewed, and improved. For a simple listing of extension methods I feel Code Review is already a correct place as it is now. One problem which could occur is that many extension methods are posted which can't be improved, and thus no answers for them will ever appear. Another is how to handle duplicate extension methods, which meta still isn't clear about at the moment.
Why it isn't suitable on Code Review (as is)?
In order to properly extract all the posted extension methods, tag-specific conventions would need to be introduced. Some I can think of now:
- Specific extension-method tag needs to be applied.
- Type of the object to which the extension method belongs needs to be applied as a tag.
- A category for the extension method should be given through a tag. (e.g. LINQ, general, reflection, ...)
- No duplicates should be posted. (Extension method with the same functionality.)
- Answers and questions should contain complete compilable code samples, not just pointers on how to improve the code.
- Preferably a particular coding convention should be followed, and methods should contain XML documentation.
- When calling other custom extension methods from within an extension method you should link to them on CR. (Or some other convention needs to be figured out in order to resolve dependencies.)
This discussion should be about the following two questions:
- Would it be worth trying out this concept on Code Review?
- Are tag-specific conventions like this a problem, and what would be a way to easily enforce them?