On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Jon Skeet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Saw a couple of minor issues with this patch. >> 1. In many places is this: (String->Class). >> It would be better as: (String->Class). > > I pondered this myself. Obviously from a purist point of view, > you're right - but then the source code ends up being harder to > read.
We are using entities in javadocs in several other classes as well, I think Erik has replaced all occurences of unescaped <, > and & some months ago. Bottom line, please don't use >. 8-) > Possibly just (String-Class) or (String to Class)? I prefer String to Class. > If it breaks things for 1.1 and/or 1.2 though, I'm happy to go back > and fix this up. I think the javadocs should work for all people who compile Ant, which means they should work in 1.1, but then again, I'm sure I've added [EMAIL PROTECTED] a b} constructs in several places myself. No religious issue, but 1.1 compatibility would be nice. Stefan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
