Resolve ambiguity issue for the stream function
#749
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…marking from the original implementation, and make argument labels consistent.
glbrntt
approved these changes
Jul 3, 2024
fabianfett
added
the
semver/minor
|
API break is expected. Merging over it |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation:
streamfunction inHTTPClientRequest.Body(newly added in Add support for request body to be larger than 2GB on 32-bit devices #746) is ambiguous with the existingstreamfunction as the first argument has a default value and the second argument is a closure. This is API-breaking.Modifications:
@deprecatedmarking from the originalstreamfunction and instead added@_disfavoredOverload.Result: