Feel free to provide a PR on GitHub :-)
Gary
On Aug 14, 2017 15:29, "Gary Gregory" wrote:
> I think we've kept the design as YAGNI as possible... :-)
>
> Gary
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:25 PM, nitin mahendru <
> nitin.mahendr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah that also
I think we've kept the design as YAGNI as possible... :-)
Gary
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 3:25 PM, nitin mahendru
wrote:
> Yeah that also is OK. I though there is a reason to keep the CSVRecord
> without setters. But maybe not!
>
> Nitin
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017
Yeah that also is OK. I though there is a reason to keep the CSVRecord
without setters. But maybe not!
Nitin
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:22 PM Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> Should we consider adding put(int,Object) and put(String, Object) to the
> current CSVRecord
Hi All:
Should we consider adding put(int,Object) and put(String, Object) to the
current CSVRecord class?
Gary
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:54 PM, nitin mahendru
wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I recently pushed a change(pull request 20) to get the line ending from the
>
Hi Everyone,
I recently pushed a change(pull request 20) to get the line ending from the
parser.
Now I want to push another change which I feel will also be useful for the
community. I want to add a CSVRecordMutable class which had a constructor
which accepts a CSVRecord object. So when we have