I disagree on your doubt, but have other doubts. Think of this issue as a TODO in the code (I think it came from a TODO file a long time back). I think it's doable with a StrMatcher change - moving it back to 3.0 because while it shouldn't break the StrTokenizer API, it will need to break the StrMatcher API.
Hen On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Chandra Shekar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > Can any body clarify my doubt on issue LANG-288; I have added my comments in > it. > > Thanks > Chandrashekar > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
