ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Expansion in includes
Date Thu, 07 Dec 2000 07:18:07 GMT
At 11:00  6/12/00 -0800, you wrote:
>On 12/6/00 10:47 PM, "Conor MacNeill" <conor@ebinteractive.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Well we have been debating whether that will continue to be true :-)
>
>I'm -1 on typing them.

Why ? You would prefer for ${fred} to potentially mean 7-8 different things
depending on where it is used. Currently we do that with different
namespace for filesets/properties/other datatypes. I prefer simplicty over
complexity that you seem to be advocating ?

>> In general, I don't think we should implicitly interpret undefined
>> properties as empty strings. If you use a property, you should give it a
>> value. If the property is not defined, the usage is probably a mistake. I
>> prefer things to be explicit (TM). As I said, that would be my preference
>> but the forward reference issue requires that undefined properties are
>> passed through unchanged, at least for now. The best we can do is log a
>> warning.
>
>I disagree. In a typical build, I may have dozens of properties that are
>perfectly ok to leave empty. I don't think its acceptable to make somebody
>go and put in a lot of empty definitions. Would I do this if Ant was its own
>fully typed and functional language -- no. But it's not.

There has been a lot of feedback on that issue. A lot of people did not
like that behaviour would silently fail because they mistyped a property
name. Even ant had mis-typed property names at one stage ;)

Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*


Mime
View raw message