On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > Could you please revert your commit, until we've reached some > consensus on this discussion first?
Huh? I thought everyone was in agreement that we needed more field types for different languages? I added my best guess about what a generic type for non-whitespace-delimited might look like. Since it's a new field type, it doesn't affect anything. Hopefully it only improves the situation for someone trying to use one of these languages. The only negative would seem to be if it's worse than nothing (i.e. a very bad example because it actually doesn't work for non-whitespace-delimited languages). The issue about changing defaults on TextField and changing what "text" does in the example schema by default is not dependent on this. They are only related by the fact that if another field is added/changed then _nwd may become redundant and can be removed. For now, it only seems like an improvement? Anyway... the whole language of "revert" seems unnecessarily confrontational. Feel free to improve what's there (or delete *_nwd if people really feel it adds no/negative value) -Yonik
