Skip to content

Conversation

@turbolent
Copy link
Member

Moved from onflow/flow#1097

Please see the initial discussion there

Copy link
Member

@SupunS SupunS left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👌

@turbolent
Copy link
Member Author

cc @austinkline @bluesign @bjartek

@turbolent
Copy link
Member Author

@austinkline We had a working group discussion about this FLIP yesterday, see https://github.com/onflow/Flow-Working-Groups/blob/main/cadence_language_and_execution_working_group/meetings/2024-10-29.md#flips.

Feedback has been that it is a low priority feature, and given the complicated situation (existing stored state with "removed" fields) and the dependency on first having to prevent field removal (for both, see https://github.com/onflow/flips/pull/295/files#diff-6243eb63ad4bcc7c53d3b54c65552ad22149247ebef272dbb0413115b04e989aR104-R116), there is unfortunately quite a lot of effort required to implement this FLIP.

Consensus has been that there are more important proposals to get in, and this proposal will be on hold, unless there is a strong reason to justify the effort. What do you think about this?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants