On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 10:16 PM, John A. Tamplin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Goktug Gokdogan <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Even though the current form is pretty flexible and you can mix and match >> the two, it doesn't mean it makes sense to do so. I'm having hard time >> thinking about out a good use case that would make a single complex mix and >> match more appealing than having a separate group of class replacements and >> a codegen (AFAIK, there is not even single example in the GWT-SDK itself). >> Actually separating the two can result in something much more >> useful&powerful [*]. >> > > An example use-case would be implementing String.format when the format > string is a compile-time constant. I had a proof of concept mostly working > for this, but it was going to require more surgery to the compiler than I > was willing to do at the time. > > I didn't fully understand the example but it sounds like it requires way more than today's deferred binding so I'm not sure it is a good use case with replace-with/generate-with and static selectors. Perhaps it should be better done with something like "evaluate-with" instead. Actually, evaluate-with sounds interesting - I'll think about it :) > -- > John A. Tamplin > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "GWT Contributors" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
