Hi @l-vo 👋 ,

first of all thanks for your contribution.
Can you explain a bit why we should change it this way? To me its less readable.

Cheers 🙏

Hi @OskarStark :)

Some examples used context constants and some others not. I thought it was an oversight for the examples that didn't use constants. Furthermore I think using constants in the doc allows to advise the developpers that context constants exist and that they should use them instead of magic strings.

Thank you for your feedback!
Personally I am against using the constants here, but let’s see what the other say.
@xabbuh @javiereguiluz

@OskarStark No problem ! Thank you for your feedback too :)

I'd say we should do this ... but it's sad that the constants are so long and ugly 😢

@javiereguiluz this should go into 3.4, right?

Thanks @l-vo! I agree with everything that's said here: It's sad that these constants aren't the nicest constants, but it seems to be commonly accepted that constants are favored over "magic strings".

@OskarStark you're correct that this in theory applies to 3.4 as well. I merged it in 4.3 however, because there were quite some changes in the options between 3.x and 4.x (DEEP_OBJECT stuff). This isn't a major thing, so only fixing it in the latest branches isn't a huge deal I think (and fixing it in 3.4 and 4.3 takes a some of time).