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

[RazvanN]

On Thursday, 13 January 2022 at 17:57:24 UTC, David Gileadi wrote:
> Based on RazvanN's reply to Elronnd (quoted for context):
>

> 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).

I think that this breaking change, although possible, has minimal
chances of happening. The reason I believe this is that libraries
typically write templated code to be able to deal with classes,
structs and templated types. As a consequence, you cannot blindly
call the likes of opCmp, toHash etc.

Even if this scenario is met (which I think it is highly 
unprobable),
the failure will be clear and arguably it would be justifiable 
because
the defaults for opCmp/toHash simply return the address of the 
class.