Why? How about a hash map that contains "foo", "Foo", "FOO" and
"foO". What would
FYI:
In the system I was considering deploying a case-insensitive Velocity, we
already use case-insensitive hashmaps. So the user experience would be
consistent (in my case) if we went to case-insensitive Velocity.
BTW, I didn't intend to argue this forcefully. There didn't seem enough of
a broad interest in the feature to make it worth including. Just explaining
the original use case.
WILL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Colson (tcolson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Velocity Users List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 5:43 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Language Lawyer question (was: Re: syntax issue)
>> (I've previously argued we should make the entire language
>> case-insensitive).
>Interesting... I could go +1 for that.
Why? How about a hash map that contains "foo", "Foo", "FOO" and
"foO". What would
Hmm... well, for hashmap, the introspector passes verbatim whatever it
sees (as far as I know)... so it would still probably work.
But it's a good counter example, and along with the getXML / getXml
example, I guess you ahve convinced that Velocity is fine just the way
it is with respect to case sensitivity. :-)
This is a good example of why Velocity sometimes does not change
quickly. We have debates like this all the time where it isn't always
clear if the change would be considered a "Good Thing" by a majority.
(Christoph -- feel free to plug your whitespace handling option here.
<grin>)
Cheers,
Timo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
