On 2012-02-24, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2012-02-23, Jesse Glick wrote:
>> On 02/21/2012 10:40 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
can do the implementation if you agree.
>>> If you can beat me to it, please do.
>> Done in trunk, please review.
> Will do, many thanks.
Merged, I'll build a new re
On 2012-02-23, Jesse Glick wrote:
> On 02/21/2012 10:40 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>> can do the implementation if you agree.
>> If you can beat me to it, please do.
> Done in trunk, please review.
Will do, many thanks.
> (Especially whether your changes to property-test.xml and
> propertyhel
On 02/21/2012 10:40 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
can do the implementation if you agree.
If you can beat me to it, please do.
Done in trunk, please review. (Especially whether your changes to property-test.xml and propertyhelper-test.xml still stand - I did not understand what was going on with
On 2012-02-21, Jesse Glick wrote:
> Any updates on #52621 and what we want the behavior to be in 1.8.3?
> My suggestion still stands to restore the 1.8.2 behavior by default
> but add an optional parameter to implement the fix of #42046 where
> needed;
Works for me. I wouldn't want us to issue
Any updates on #52621 and what we want the behavior to be in 1.8.3? My suggestion still stands to restore the 1.8.2 behavior by default but add an optional parameter to
implement the fix of #42046 where needed; can do the implementation if you agree.
On 02/14/2012 07:39 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Most likely you don't want double expansion in most cases.
Right, but how often would you even notice the difference? Usually property values do not themselves contain interpolable variables, as seen by the fact that this problem
has just been repo
On 2012-02-12, Jesse Glick wrote:
> On 02/12/2012 05:13 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> I'm not sure whether the macrodef writer will always know whether she
>> wants double-expansion or not.
> I would say that if you come across a problem like that mentioned in
> #42046 then you know you do not wa
On 02/12/2012 05:13 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
I'm not sure whether the macrodef writer will always know whether she
wants double-expansion or not.
I would say that if you come across a problem like that mentioned in #42046
then you know you do not want double expansion and should explicitly tu
