The `parseInt` issue is just that sometimes developers use `parseInt` with only one argument instead of two, and `parseInt` requires two. Developers don't define `parseInt`, it's an interface given to them. It's a much different issue for two reasons:

- The user has control of what the function is doing. In JavaScript this isn't as much of a point, but even in the parseInt example - you can wrap parseInt in a closure and pass the correct secondary argument to it and the problem is fixed. It's another case of user error - and a case that wouldn't happen with this example.

- JavaScript provides that that arguments are optional unless expected by the function, so not including relation in the arguments list does not hurt anyone unless the developer wants to use it in the function and doesn't supply it.

There aren't really any downsides to this patch as far as I can tell in terms of it breaking any previously existing code (that's specifically why I provide it as the second argument), and it proves to be extremely useful in just my first 5 minutes of using polymorphic these relations.

Thus, I don't see any potential issues which could arrise from this code even in more obscure scenarios.