On Sat, Nov 26, 2022, 4:45 PM Máté Kocsis <kocsismat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We proposed this change because it wouldn't break anything that's already > not "broken". > > Regards: > Máté > The example provided already raised some eyebrows from people. I think the argument of "let's furthet enhance this 'broken' behavior" isn't that great. I find the ability of child class to ignore the parent readonly definition awkward at best. >
