On 11/17/05, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I do want to see, even if we keep the old syntax, is to make "set"
> always treat missing values the way we had started talking about for
> "set-if". That means, in my styleClass scenario:
>
>
>
> ...
>
> ...
>
>
>
> we would *no
On 11/17/05, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
> I see the distinction as the Clay symbols can be used to create a new
> expression. This was the original vision for the "managed-bean-name" (We
> recently added the "@" delimiter for all other symbols). There are
Sorry for the late response ... been somewhat distracted by day job
responsibilities, so I could only answer simple questions during compile
cycles :-). A couple of comments below.
On 11/16/05, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We had some discussion on changing the Clay symbols to make
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>Gary-
>
>First of all, thanks for all your work around clay.
>
Thanks!
>Since I mentioned I like the "new" syntax, here is my 2c worth (old
>and new are subjective, what you call the old syntax is really new to
>me, for example ;-):
>
Indeed, you are a skilled negotiator
On 11/16/05, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We had some discussion on changing the Clay symbols to make them more JSF
> like. I wanted to regroup on this to make sure that this is something that
> we want to change.
>
>
> The current syntax allow for partial replacement. The symbol
I am also hedging towards the older syntax because I have found it
very flexible and I am worried that the new syntax may be limiting.
For example, I am using the following component for labels
I am not sure this could be done with the new syntax.
On 11/16/05, Gary VanMatre
