On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:41 PM, John LaBanca <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do you agree that we would still have a NumberParser even with the >> renderers? >> > > Uh, what? > > > *NumberParser => NumberCell > I'm not sure I do, actually. It may be easy enough to do new ValueCell<Number>(new NumberParser()) that we could drop it. But the point is moot until gwt.input hits trunk, and ValueCell exists. > > Thanks, > John LaBanca > [email protected] > > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Ray Ryan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:29 PM, John LaBanca <[email protected]>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 >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM, <[email protected]> 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
