> > Do you agree that we would still have a NumberParser even with the > renderers? >
Uh, what? *NumberParser => NumberCell Thanks, John LaBanca jlaba...@google.com On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Ray Ryan <rj...@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:29 PM, John LaBanca <jlaba...@google.com>wrote: > >> Hmmm... are you suggesting a ValueCell/ValueInputCell that defers to a >> Renderer/Parser? Assuming you mean that we would have subclasses for each >> type as we do with ValueBox, I agree. But that means that we'll have a >> DateCell and NumberCell anyway, so this patch can go in and we can add a >> ValueCell super class later. >> > > Yes. So I guess this is an interesting conversation but need not hold up > this CL. > >> >> That being said, I'm wary of having non-internationalized parsers such as >> DoubleParser. If I'm parsing user input, I probably want to use >> NumberFormat.parser, which will handle doubles in the form 1,22 (unless >> Double.parseDouble does that). >> > > No argument. DoubleParser was a thoughtless last second hack, and is > probably wrong. > >> >> Do you agree that we would still have a NumberParser even with the >> renderers? >> > > Uh, what? > >> >> Thanks, >> John LaBanca >> jlaba...@google.com >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM, <j...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> LGTM >>> >>> >>> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/568801/show >>> >> >> -- >> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >> > > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
