Erik,
That is pretty proprietary from the standpoint that the compiler would have to generate a dictionary to just hold the property if it was integrated into the language.

Andemann,
That is not quite how extension methods work. NULL is an absence of an object, so you wouldn’t be able to tell the object to response with String.Empty since the object isn’t really there.

if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(s))
return s;

Just a thought to save a Trim() operation if the string is already empty.

Thanks!

private static Dictionary _Tags = new Dictionary();

public static void set_Tag(this object taggedObject, object tag)
{
if(taggedObject == null) return;
if(_Tags.ContainsKey(taggedObject) && tag == null) _Tags.Remove(taggedObject);
_Tags[taggedObject] = tag;
}

public static object get_Tag(this object taggedObject)
{
if(!_Tags.ContainsKey(taggedObject)) return null;
return _Tags[taggedObject];
}

Of course this solution doesn’t take into account objects that go out of scope; memory leaks will occur, although WeakReference could help here. This still doesn’t get you property syntax in 3.5, even though it looks like it should.

ps: I hope the indentations work…

Your tryTrim should return string.empty and not the input value when the input value is null, that way you’ll avoid a nullreferenceexception when you attempt to use the trimmed value

public static void set_MyProperty(this string s)…

If it compiled you should be able to do:
string s = “”;
s.MyProperty = value;

However there seems to be a whole host of problems with making property extensions that is not currently dealt with in the .NET framework yet.

How would you set the value inside the object the get_ and set_ methods are static and outside of the object. Where would you store this value, because remember the property is static and any property thing you would set would be the same across all properties for that method. Which would become confusing since it looks like a property of the object.

I am sure they will work it out, but probably not till 4.0 or 4.5.