30 Nov
2009
30 Nov
'09
10:42 p.m.
Daniel James wrote:
This is meant to be a short lived workaround, we shouldn't over-engineer it. A new type and a template method is pretty gratuitous. I prefer the simplest, least disruptive solution - adding a new method with a different name. In the future when the method is removed (it'll go through a deprecation process first) the resulting error messages will be simpler and the name of the function will be easily searched (both in code and for an explanation on the web).
I agree. John Zwinck