Closed SamWilsn closed 10 months ago
I don't see a problem with this. Like @Pandapip1 says, removing this function is backwards compatible and this definitely looks like a mistake on the authors' part.
merge
+1 for me. Will also assist @Dexaran if he wants to seperate this into its own standard as-is.
I thought the ERC-223 is... final?
i am fine removing something which accidentally got by and already notifies in EIP that implementations shouldn't depend on it
I am fine to have it removed if it's accidental inclusion provided it's still very recently finalized. And let's avoid this next time together.
cut-and-dry example of an "errata" edit-- not a normative change, doesn't break anything normative, grounded in the history of the PR
tl;dr function was removed from spec then later accidentally re-added.