Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 77-78 (items 799-800) reports that Ibn Zayd said that
was abrogated by fighting. At-Tabari seemed against it at first then sounded like he accepted it in the end, as quoted by Dr. Zayd.
An-Nahhaas wrote that the subject of this verse, said the majority except Ibn Nujayh, is punitive damages and such.
Dr. Zayd rejects the claim because he sees no contradiction between punishment-in-kind and fighting the polytheists. Furthermore, he says, the command in 42:40 covers Muslims too while the sword verse covers polytheists only.
Ibn Al-Jawzi reported this case too, but said that the claim was that the abrogating was claimed to be the subsequent statement "But whoever pardons and reforms then his reward is upon God". Ibn Al-Jawzi comments on that claim that only people who do not understand the abrogating and the abrogated would make such a claim, since what the verse simply means is that if one will punish a bad deed, one should punish it in kind, but to pardon is better.Who said what:
At-Tabari (implied, quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Nujayh (implied, per An-Nahhaas).
An-Nahhaas (implied, according to Dr. Zayd),
The majority (implied by An-Nahhaas, wrote Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Al-Jawzi (who rejected the claim that the verse is self abrogating, quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.