On 05/06/2018 09:34 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 02:05:45AM +0000, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote: > >> You could just define a new method that does this and leave the old one >> as is. > That is a good idea. Actually, it appears that this function definition > is not used. But I think I will still not touch it and create a new > function called "hasChange()".
Yes, only the single argument version seems to be used. I'd go ahead and delete, or at least comment out, the unused one. Riki
