Yes, but that essentially means changing them methods signatures since it's the first parameter and default arguments need to be last
-- Itamar Syn-Hershko http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> Freelance Developer & Consultant Lucene.NET committer and PMC member On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Shad Storhaug <[email protected]> wrote: > Itamar, > > I think for those rare cases, we should leave it in. But, it would be a > good idea to add overloads that default them to the current version so most > users get a streamlined experience. > > You mentioned that you were "removing" them, I hope that you meant that > you are simply providing overloads that don't have them so they are not > required. > > Thanks, > Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:27 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Removing LuceneVersion.LUCENE_48 from external API? > > It's a required argument for those methods - while I think it's too > verbose there as well, at least it makes sense because they have many > versions. We don't really need it because we only have one version, except > from the rare cases backwards supporting indexes that are shared with Java > code that maintains them. > > -- > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> > Freelance Developer & Consultant Lucene.NET committer and PMC member > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Wyatt Barnett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I think making it an optional parameter sounds like a good idea on the > > surface. How does the java library handle this? > > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:39 PM Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > I'm working on some demos, and one things that keeps popping up and > > > to be frank gets quite annoying is the requirement to specify > > > LuceneVersion.LUCENE_48 on all public APIs - opening a readers and > > writers, > > > analyzers, etc. > > > > > > Since we only have one version release, and that concept is not > > > going to > > be > > > really useful anyway, what do you say we remove (or set a default > > > value > > for > > > it) on all public facing APIs? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant Lucene.NET committer and PMC member > > > > > >
