Craig McClanahan wrote:
On 1/5/06, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Craig McClanahan wrote:
On 1/5/06, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks to my unusual use of view identifiers carrying path-extra-info
information, I've discovered a bit of a limitation with
DefaultViewContr
On 1/5/06, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Craig McClanahan wrote:
> > On 1/5/06, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Thanks to my unusual use of view identifiers carrying path-extra-info
> >> information, I've discovered a bit of a limitation with
> >> DefaultViewControllerM
Craig McClanahan wrote:
On 1/5/06, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks to my unusual use of view identifiers carrying path-extra-info
information, I've discovered a bit of a limitation with
DefaultViewControllerMapper: if the result of applying the mapping
algorithm isn't legal as a
On 1/5/06, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks to my unusual use of view identifiers carrying path-extra-info
> information, I've discovered a bit of a limitation with
> DefaultViewControllerMapper: if the result of applying the mapping
> algorithm isn't legal as a value binding exp
Thanks to my unusual use of view identifiers carrying path-extra-info
information, I've discovered a bit of a limitation with
DefaultViewControllerMapper: if the result of applying the mapping
algorithm isn't legal as a value binding expression, you get an ugly
stack trace. I triggered this bec
