Re: [whatwg/dom] `AbortController` / `AbortSignal` was updated in a somewhat breaking way (Issue #1059)

I understand that narrower stance, but I don't think this point has been fully groked:

The "breaking change" was not "adding the property", it's the combination of all 3 of these things together that constitutes the de facto (even if not official) "breaking change":

1. adding the property; AND

2.  enforcing that it always has to have an intentional value (meaning it's now "required" -- omitting it vs requiring an affirmative `undefined` argument value); AND

3. enforcing that if this new "required" property is not set (via the now "required" argument to `abort()`), in place of such value there's now a DOMException whose semantic meaning is *not* "this was aborted" but rather "you messed up and didn't provide a required reason value".

Those 3 things together constitute a "breaking change" by any meaningful definition that I (or any reasonable dev I know) would use for any software I maintain. I cannot imagine making that kind of a change to any library I maintain, and then with a straight face claiming "what, bro, it's not technically a breaking change!?" 

I understand you refuse to accept that since you're using a more academic definition of "breaking change" instead of a pragmatic one. But anyway, I dealt with the breakage it caused users of my library, I've said my piece, and this is long-past water under the bridge. I won't keep belaboring it anymore.

----

Sorry for the noise of ressurecting a dead thread. I somehow never saw those previous responses around the time of the thread resolution.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/1059#issuecomment-2324922102
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/dom/issues/1059/2324922102@github.com>