Revert "Make Field constructors keyword-only" #8286
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This reverts commit fdb4931.
Merged
|
Not sure what I think about this. If I'm on 3.2, I can stick (for a long time yet). If I'm updating to 4.0 my app is under active development and the fix here catches an issue I want to be called out (I think). I'm not sure of the benefit of the smaller release... 🤔 (Carrot and Stick) |
|
Alrighty, I'm hearing this. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issuing this as a pull request somewhat speculatively.
Reverts #7632 in order to allow us to issue a minor rather than a major point release.
Also I'm just not convinced that the busy-work it'll create for our users is necessarily in our interests, even if it does add an extra safety rail against one particular type of broken usage. (Is the trade off between the work it'll create vs. the edge case wiggliness it helps guard against, a good one or not - hard to say.)
Anyways at this point I'm just issuing the PR to check if it still passes the test suite once reverted. A starting point for figuring out what our options are here.