On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Terry Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 22:14:21 -0700 (PDT) > felix74 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I've just searched through the bugs and found this >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/leo-editor/+bug/882243
> I've just switched it from Wishlist to Medium and posted this comment > on the bug: > > I think this bug should be revisited. I've switched it from Wishlist to > Medium - let's either get it fixed to do what people expect, or switch > it to Invalid with a definite ruling on why it's invalid. > > It seems that unless there's a definite reason not to change it, i.e. > changing it would break some existing workflow, it should be changed on > the "avoid surprising the user" principle. I know changes to the > read/write code are a big deal, but it seems this could be changed at > least to see if it breaks any unit tests - after that it might be a > case of letting it out in the wild to see what happens. I'm convinced. I hesitated to fix this because it didn't seem like a big deal, and because there is a workaround, but it looks like not fixing this bug is just wasting all of our time. Not sure when I'll get to this: I'm deep in the static type checking code just now. This bug will be safe to fix in the trunk, using a coding pattern that arose after this bug was reported. I'll define a constant in leoGlobals.py, say g_clone_fix. All changes will be enabled or disabled using this constant. This allows an easy "out" if unexpected problems arise. The constant also highlights the changes after they are published for wider testing. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
