Doesn't Rule 3.13 contradict 1.10?

[schauder]

3.13 says:

Re-subscribing with the same Subscriber object is discouraged [see 2.12], but this specification does not mandate that it is disallowed since that would mean having to store previously cancelled subscriptions indefinitely.

1.10 says:

Publisher.subscribe MAY be called as many times as wanted but MUST be with a different Subscriber each time

wouldn't the discouraged part of 3.13 result in a violation of 1.10 and thereby it is not just discouraged, but actually disallowed?

Or missing something?

[rkuhn]

1.10 defines permissible behavior of callers of subscribe, i.e. whoever calls that method must make sure to use a fresh Subscriber every time.

3.13 mandates that the Publisher drops all references to a Subscriber after the associated Subscription has been cancelled, meaning that the Publisher cannot be held responsible for enforcing that 1.10 is obeyed.

Hence, there is no contradiction, it is just that different parties are held accountable for different parts of the contract.

[schauder]

Thanks, that makes sense. Would be great to have this kind of stuff in some comments to the rules. But I think there is already an issue for that, right?

[viktorklang]

Yeah, I should get to that at some point. :S
I should try to set aside a week for that. If possible.

[viktorklang]

Perhaps start an FAQ in the mean time?
Could someone try to do that?

[viktorklang]

AFAIK solved by #339