> On Jul 6, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Jochen Theodorou <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 06.07.2016 16:24, Suderman Keith wrote:
>> -1 to a breaking change (in 2.5 or 3.0). I agree with Jason, breaking
>> changes only for methods that are widely considered to be broken.
>
> if no breaking changes even in a new major version, then when?
Well, I was simply speaking to this particular breaking change. However, I am
in agreement with Jason and breaking changes should only occur in major
versions (maybe with some exceptions) and then only for very good, well agreed
upon reasons.
Keith
>
>>
>> -1 to a new method. While a new method may be better than a breaking change
>> I don’t like to see Object’s namespace become even more polluted with
>> marginally useful methods. I don’t think the current behaviour is so
>> offensive that it requires an additional method on Object; is `x.with { it
>> }` really that bad?
>
> yes, I feel the namespace for Object is too polluted already as well.
>
> bye Jochen
------------------------------
Research Associate
Department of Computer Science
Vassar College
Poughkeepsie, NY
