On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:07 AM, BobV b...@google.com wrote:
Here is the patch which does what Scott suggested. Any objections?
LGTM
Thanks, committed with Scott's javadoc change at r5184.
--
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Scott Blum sco...@google.com wrote:
Two things:
1) Do you have to use a temp, or can you do something
like artifacts. EmittedArtifact find(EmittedArtifact.class)? Or whatever
the syntax is.
It could also be:
for (EmittedArtifact artifact :
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Scott Blum sco...@google.com wrote:
John and I discussed this face to face. It turns out that the find()
method has, perhaps, an unnecessarily complicated specification that pushes
generic compile time sugar arguably past the point of usefulness --- and
I think the javadoc is now more confusing than useful, due to the weird
caveat about public/generated resources.
How about we just kill all the javadoc from The following two examples...
up to the @param list? Or else, give the most useful and common example,
using a for-each loop with the result
Two things:
1) Do you have to use a temp, or can you do something
like artifacts. EmittedArtifact find(EmittedArtifact.class)? Or whatever
the syntax is.
2) What's the plan for preventing regressions or new occurrences of this in
the future?
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:19 PM, John Tamplin
