Mark Bakhit

If we're allowing support for multiple communicators, imo that narrows it down to the following: - use_channel - use_data_channel - use_messenger - use_data_messenger - use_communicator --- I updated the example...

> Maybe related to #527 I don't believe so. This IDOM version sync would need to be separate from our "common files". At least that's how I've seen this implemented...

@rmorshea Since we're aiming for a monorepo, can we close this?

I think doing "skip changelog" via labels is inherently flawed. We really shouldn't give all GitHub users the ability to edit issue labels. The alternative is having project managers (yourself...

But isn't `div[*(args)]` valid syntax? I utilize that all over the Django parts of Conreq. So in my case I would have never received a warning.

You're right. It's only during the initialization of an array where [I was using the unpack operator](https://github.com/Archmonger/Conreq/blob/6d8f302cb88f30f6d835371d6f766e412ac3edea/conreq/settings.py#L218). Wouldn't the syntax you're suggesting make constructing elements awkward? I'm envisioning something like.......

That's a pretty clever way to solve this one, I say lets do it. Perhaps v1->v2 target? Unless it's a super quick implementation.

> I guess the whole framework is probably odd to Python devs though, so maybe this isn't so bad. Agreed. IDOM is pretty far removed from Python styling so it...

I still want to note, it is still viable to not develop this and just appropriately document the limitation.

Alternatively, for function defs we can check if their code is equal using string equality