Glad I looked at it funny, then. Micro-design reviews ftw.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Ray Ryan <rj...@google.com> wrote: > Yeah, thinking about it by the light of day I think it's the wrong > direction. > > The use case is dealing with boolean values that may be null, and really a > check box is just the wrong UI there. Withdrawn. > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Bruce Johnson <br...@google.com> wrote: > >> Can you provide a little more context for why it should work this way? >> >> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Ray Ryan <rj...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> When we made the CheckBox widget implement HasValue, we had it throw an >>> illegal argument exception when setValue() is called with null. >>> >>> I think we goofed. >>> >>> Can we get away with relaxing that? I'd like this to be the case: >>> >>> CheckBox cb = new CheckBox(); >>> cb.setValue(null); >>> assertNull(cb.getValue()); >>> >>> >>> rjrjr >>> >>> -- >>> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >> >> >> -- >> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
