It couldn't have been that easy. Surely someone disagrees? On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:57 AM, John Tamplin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Freeland Abbott <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I like the general idea, yes. >> >> A complication is that one of the changes John asked for, specific for the >> i18n provider, was to return */*-FALLBACK-*/ || "default"*, with the idea >> that a null/undefined fallback should be gracefully handled, since an >> invalid locale return is going to break the generators. I'm personally a >> bit less concerned there (user both overrode the default and also >> misconfigured => generator should test for and gracefully explain), but in >> the i18n case we do have a "fallback fallback" to return, so I said okay. >> That wouldn't work for chaining, first because you don't always have such a >> fallback, and second because with a chain you couldn't put the fallback into >> the provider, and having <set-property-fallback-fallback /> or >> <set-property-fallback exponent=n ... /> is silly. >> > > Maybe if null gets all the way beck to the top, just replace it with an > empty string, and the i18n code should treat that equivalently to default > (it already does in many places). > > -- > John A. Tamplin > Software Engineer (GWT), Google > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
