DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22867>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22867 Tag handlers can't be inner/nested classes ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-09-02 22:00 ------- You certainly can, but if you did that, you would pretty much have only yourself to blame when tools give you a hard time about it, because of this clause in the Java Language Specification (Section 3.8, Java Identifiers): The Java letters include uppercase and lowercase ASCII Latin letters A-Z (\u0041-\u005a), and a-z (\u0061-\u007a), and, for historical reasons, the ASCII underscore (_, or \u005f) and dollar sign ($, or \u0024). The $ character should be used only in mechanically generated source code or, rarely, to access preexisting names on legacy systems. http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/lexical.doc.html#40625 Given that, I think it would be fair to assume that '$' means a nested class ... especially since doing that repairs a common use case that is currently broken, perhaps at the cost of breaking an arcane one which is probably *also* currently broken :) But this section of the JLS does beg the question: why is the JSP compiler rejecting an identifier with a '$' in it? Since it is legal (apparently in source code as well -- I thought it wasn't), there shouldn't be a problem resolving a classname like A$B when there is an import declaration for A and A contains a static nested class called B -- should there? Is Sun's javac breaking the JLS by rejecting this? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
