Well, it kinda needs setText(). Otherwise, it wouldn't be very useful. ;-)
I don't think there's any harm in putting the constructor back. On Thursday, March 26, 2009, at 11:58AM, "Todd Volkert" <[email protected]> wrote: >TextInput used to have a constructor that took a String, but it >doesn't anymore. Yet it still has a setText(String) method. Any >reason to not provide the constructor? > >-T > >
