public event EventHandler<MyEventArgs> OnMyEvent = delegate {};

I fail to see how this would not be maintainable, and I still think it is very readable.

So do you not like extension methods? Or is there something specific about my implementation that you don’t like?

FWIW, we did something similar in our .NET 2 codebase. We had a static class called DelegateInvoke, with a method to raise an event:

public static class DelegateInvoker
{
public static Raise(EventHandler handler, object sender, T eventArgs)
{
if(handler != null) handler(sender, eventArgs);
}
}

When then raised events like this:

DelegateInvoker.Raise(SomeEvent, sender, args);

That said, your use of extension methods makes for a more natural syntax.

Nice job

@Alex: There is no race condition here. When you invoke am event directly in your code:
if (SomeEvent != null)
SomeEvent(this, …); // bad!
then someone might be changing it after the if, but before the event gets invoked. That’s what the invoke-snipped you posted prevents, by copying the current event handler into a local variable.

However, if you’re calling a method to fire your event (extension method or not) then the event handler is implicitly copied on the stack, unless it’s passed as a ref parameter. So Cris’ code is not only simpler, it is also thread-safe!