Ok, but using the previous version of the language to demonstrate your point is much less interesting. Additionally, there is the issue of clarity: when I read "C#" I tend to assume that means the language as it exists today, not some previous version.
You completely missed the point of the article, which was that I can add these features to the language without waiting on the language designer. Microsoft added three key technologies to C# 3, one of which was syntactic sugar for the other two. That's irrelevant to my point.
