On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:07 AM, BobV wrote:
> > Here is the patch which does what Scott suggested. Any objections?
>
> LGTM
Thanks, committed with Scott's javadoc change at r5184.
--
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http:/
> Here is the patch which does what Scott suggested. Any objections?
LGTM
--
Bob Vawter
Google Web Toolkit Team
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
I think the javadoc is now more confusing than useful, due to the weird
caveat about public/generated resources.
How about we just kill all the javadoc from "The following two examples..."
up to the @param list? Or else, give the most useful and common example,
using a for-each loop with the resul
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Scott Blum wrote:
> John and I discussed this face to face. It turns out that the find()
> method has, perhaps, an unnecessarily complicated specification that pushes
> generic compile time sugar arguably past the point of usefulness --- and
> definitely past wha
John and I discussed this face to face. It turns out that the find() method
has, perhaps, and unnecessarily complicated specification that pushes
generic compile time sugar arguably past the point of usefulness --- and
definitely past what OpenJDK allows.
So our tentative resolution is to simplify
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Scott Blum wrote:
> Two things:
> 1) Do you have to use a temp, or can you do something
> like artifacts. find(EmittedArtifact.class)? Or whatever
> the syntax is.
>
It could also be:
for (EmittedArtifact artifact : artifacts.find(EmittedArtifact.class)) {
Two things:
1) Do you have to use a temp, or can you do something
like artifacts. find(EmittedArtifact.class)? Or whatever
the syntax is.
2) What's the plan for preventing regressions or new occurrences of this in
the future?
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:19 PM, John Tamplin wrote:
> OpenJDK has
