> On Thursday, Jun 15, 2023 at 12:01 PM, Deleu <deleu...@gmail.com > (mailto:deleu...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > One can argue that this change might make it so that users start > considering adding methods with default implementation as > not-so-much-a-bc-break and do so without bumping a major version, in which > case this RFC could be said to "open the door for some users to start > introducing BC-breaks without bumping major version" because they consider > it a much smaller BC break, but it can't be said to open the possibility. At this point, though, how different is the impact from this type of B/C break from the B/C break that already occurs when new methods are added to non-final classes where a subclass used a different signature and isn’t compatible with the new addition?
- Michael
