Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: OS detection:  am I missing the obvious?
References: <635802DA64D4D31190D500508B9B04104E0F92@dcsrv0>
From: Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@bost.de>
Date: 09 Nov 2000 15:34:52 +0100
In-Reply-To: Jose  Alberto Fernandez's message of "Wed,
 8 Nov 2000 19:38:24 -0800"
Message-ID: <m3vgtxkycz.fsf@bodewig.bost.de>
Lines: 29
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Jose Alberto Fernandez <JFernandez@viquity.com> wrote:

> Diane, see what you did, you make me get into this again :-(

I hope there is at least a little bit of a smile left on your face.

> the only thing you cannot do is compare two properties which may be
> useful if the property values may be complicated.

> So, except for this last feature (which you cannot do because ifs
> attributes are not expanded), it is possible to do all this things
> the "purist" are afraid of.  

Guess I need to clarify some things (as I'm sure I belong to those
considered purists). I'm not afraid of giving users the power to do
disjunction or take actions based on the value of a property, not at
all. What I fear is that they start asking for more and more operators
once we start having any operators inside the if attribute.

> So, the argument for equality checking is more one for easy notation
> than anything else.

So my argument against equality checking using an operator in if
attributes is more one against the expectations raised by the easy
notation than anything else.

Not talking for the other developers of course.

Stefan