Thanks! Since I haven't heard objections I'll go ahead and merge the suggested change. This does change exception messages, but I hope has low likelihood of causing major issues, considering that
1. There have been some earlier changes for 2.9 messages anyway, partly since 2. More granular exception types have been added in 2.9, which should reduce need to rely on exception message -+ Tatu +- On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Lovro Pandzic <[email protected]> wrote: > Quick googling yields - > https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/204006/cannot-vs-can-not > > > On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 6:29:44 PM UTC+2, Tatu Saloranta wrote: >> >> Quick question: I would appreciate quite sanity check on this PR >> >> https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-databind/pull/1681 >> >> which proposes to change wording of comments and exception messages so >> that "cannot" would be used in place of "can not" in most (or all?) >> instances. I do not feel qualified to really comment on this, so I was >> hoping a native speaker or two could confirm this makes sense. >> >> My only concern (assuming new wording is better here) is that existing >> code may be using check for existing exact phrasing. This may or may >> not be big concern (plus there are often changes in individual >> messages over minor versions), but since change has potential for >> adverse effects (over just keeping things as is) I want to be >> conservative here. >> >> -+ Tatu +- > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "jackson-dev" 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/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jackson-dev" 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/d/optout.
