Community
Participate
Working Groups
Build Identifier: I20100608-0911 File: eclipse\plugins\org.eclipse.platform.doc.isv\porting\3.6\incompatibilities.html Source sentence 1: Clients dependent on the setting of a Spinner control's valid range to a single value to fail. Question: Does this mean "Clients that failed because they were dependent on the setting of a Spinner control's valid range to a single value"? If not, please explain. Source sentence 2: Clients that were dependent on this case failing now need to check for this condition before setting a Spinner's maximum to a value that would match its minimum value (or vice versa), and not set the value in such cases. Question: Does this mean "Clients that failed because they were dependent on this case ... and plese do not set the value in such cases"? If not, please explain. Reproducible: Always
(In reply to comment #0) > Source sentence 1: > Clients dependent on the setting of a Spinner control's valid range to a single > value to fail. > > Question: > Does this mean "Clients that failed because they were dependent on the setting > of a Spinner control's valid range to a single value"? If not, please explain. This is a poorly worded sentence. I propose rewriting it to say, "Clients that expected setting a single value range on a Spinner control to fail." This means, if you expected a failure to occur when setting the range to a single value, you will be affected by this bug (because setting a single value is now supported). > Source sentence 2: > Clients that were dependent on this case failing now need to check for this > condition before setting a Spinner's maximum to a value that would match its > minimum value (or vice versa), and not set the value in such cases. > > Question: > Does this mean "Clients that failed because they were dependent on this case > ... and plese do not set the value in such cases"? If not, please explain. > > Reproducible: Always I suggest something like "Clients that do not want to allow the spinner range to be a single value must now check for this case and not set the value in such cases."
Actually Grant, "fail" sounds like a strong word here. In reality if you tried to do this in the past, it would just be ignored, right? If so I suggest changing to "Clients that expected setting a single value range on a Spinner control to be ignored.", etc.
Yes that is the case. I tried re-writing it with ignored, but in a couple of places it left the meaning a bit ambiguous. Perhaps "disallowed" is better? Spinner now allows setting equal minimum and maximum values What is affected: Clients that expect setting a single value range on a Spinner control to be disallowed. Description: Prior to Eclipse 3.6, attempts to set a Spinner's value range to a single value were disallowed. This was done in order to be consistent with other range-based controls in SWT. However the case of specifying a single integer value as a Spinner's value range is valid, so this is now allowed. Clients that were dependent on this case being disallowed must now check for this condition before setting a Spinner's maximum to a value that would match its minimum value (or vice versa), and not set the value in such cases.
That sounds good. I have released Grant's new wording in HEAD (3.7 stream).
