On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> wrote:
To state my conclusion first: It would be intolerable to break existing > code *of which we have no knowledge*. That code might use v._bodyString > *without* checking v._sync. > ​Well, making v._bodyString a property would solve the compatibility problem. There would be a substantial cost to using this property, so it shouldn't be used in Leo's core or plugins. In the new scheme, v._bodyString would issue a warning for every distinct set of g.callers(). I've used this pattern before. But perhaps all this should be a thought experiment, and we really *can* live with v._bodyString as it is now. Please let me know your thoughts. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
