On 21 November 2024 08:15:12 GMT, Daniil Gentili <daniil.gent...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Hi Ilija,
>I believe the removal of function caching is a bit of an overreaction: it was
>always known, to those who used it, that preloading will cache functions, and
>requires an include guard to avoid function redeclaration errors, and in fact
>it is a very useful feature.
>
>There is nothing wrong with this behaviour, and it does what you expect it to
>do.
This reads rather awkwardly, because you're claiming to speak for some unknown
users ("those who used it") and even for the reader of the message ("it does
what you expect it to do").
More helpful would be to say how *you* use it, or where you have seen it used.
Evidently it wasn't obvious to Ilija, and wasn't what they expected. Since it's
not mentioned in the manual, it's not what I would have expected either.
Ilija also went to some length to describe real practical problems, so just
saying there's "nothing wrong with this behaviour" also seems unhelpful.
Perhaps you could expand on why you think the problems illustrated aren't
significant in practice?
I would also be interested to know if you think the difference in behaviour
between classes and functions is explicitly useful, or just neutral to your use
case.
Regards,
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]
