Feedback Thread: DIP 1042--ProtoObject--Community Review Round 1

[David Gileadi]

Based on RazvanN's reply to Elronnd (quoted for context):

> I think that the fundamental idea here is that when the library owner
> switches from Object to ProtoObject that is a breaking change that should
> be advertised, because he is changing the API. The library owner should
> either release a new major version or provide the same utilies as Object.
> The idea here is that you do not know what your users are doing; even without
> library X, the user can simply call toHash because Object used to have it.
If this change leads each of my dependencies to make breaking changes 
then its backwards compatibility certainly isn't the "no breaking 
changes" claimed by the DIP. This effect on users of third-party 
libraries should be called out in the DIP's Breaking Changes and 
Deprecations section.

(I'm replying to the original post here because my original reply 
violated Feedback rules; sorry about that).