On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:53 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 09/01/2010, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:37 PM, sebb wrote:
>> > On 08/01/2010, sebb wrote:
>> >> On 08/01/2010, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:51 PM, sebb wrote:
>> >> > > The overridable
On 09/01/2010, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:37 PM, sebb wrote:
> > On 08/01/2010, sebb wrote:
> >> On 08/01/2010, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:51 PM, sebb wrote:
> >> > > The overridable methods in DirectoryWalker currently use
> Collectio
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:37 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 08/01/2010, sebb wrote:
>> On 08/01/2010, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:51 PM, sebb wrote:
>> > > The overridable methods in DirectoryWalker currently use Collection
>> > > as a parameter type.
>> > >
>> > > As far
On 08/01/2010, sebb wrote:
> On 08/01/2010, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:51 PM, sebb wrote:
> > > The overridable methods in DirectoryWalker currently use Collection
> > > as a parameter type.
> > >
> > > As far as I can tell, the Collections need to contain File
On 08/01/2010, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:51 PM, sebb wrote:
> > The overridable methods in DirectoryWalker currently use Collection
> > as a parameter type.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, the Collections need to contain File objects, so
> > would it not be better to us
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:51 PM, sebb wrote:
> The overridable methods in DirectoryWalker currently use Collection
> as a parameter type.
>
> As far as I can tell, the Collections need to contain File objects, so
> would it not be better to use Collection?
>
> Might be nice to use Collection, but w
The overridable methods in DirectoryWalker currently use Collection
as a parameter type.
As far as I can tell, the Collections need to contain File objects, so
would it not be better to use Collection?
Might be nice to use Collection, but when I tried that
there were some problems with the test c
