Right. Both are "supposed" to be supported, and therefore should be tested, but I don't think mine is the only system that balks at $, so as to avoid quirky shell evaluation behavior. Thus the suggestion to go with overlays. We could, alternatively, strongly prefer _ instead of $, and either not test $ or test it minimally (which is, I think, what we do now with _). I don't think being "right" on both is expensive, though, apart from the initial transition cost I'm offering to do.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:48 PM, John Tamplin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The $ vs. _ issue is weird to me, not sure what to make of it. I think I >> know the files in question, and it's possible we're not getting any value >> out of having .class files for inner classes checked in to version control.. >> we might can rename/nuke. >> > > There are property files, used to verify that you can use > Foo$Bar_en_US.properties or Foo_Bar_en_US.properties for nested classes. > > -- > John A. Tamplin > Software Engineer (GWT), Google > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
