ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject [Bug 1445] Changed - XML Parser bug for commented tags
Date Mon, 23 Apr 2001 02:01:23 GMT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1445

*** shadow/1445	Sun Apr 22 07:01:53 2001
--- shadow/1445.tmp.1261	Sun Apr 22 19:01:22 2001
***************
*** 2,9 ****
  | XML Parser bug for commented tags                                          |
  +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |        Bug #: 1445                        Product: Ant                     |
! |       Status: RESOLVED                    Version: 1.3                     |
! |   Resolution: INVALID                    Platform: PC                      |
  |     Severity: Normal                   OS/Version: All                     |
  |     Priority: High                      Component: Core                    |
  +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
--- 2,9 ----
  | XML Parser bug for commented tags                                          |
  +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |        Bug #: 1445                        Product: Ant                     |
! |       Status: REOPENED                    Version: 1.3                     |
! |   Resolution:                            Platform: PC                      |
  |     Severity: Normal                   OS/Version: All                     |
  |     Priority: High                      Component: Core                    |
  +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
***************
*** 45,48 ****
--- 45,74 ----
  /*
      String oops = "*/";
  */
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ ------- Additional Comments From greg.fenton@sybase.com  2001-04-22 19:01 -------
+ I don't see how javac's parser being brain-dead (see above code example shows)
+ should be justification for a similar parser issue with Ant...or are they using
+ the same parser?
+ 
+ In both cases quoted previously, the comment token is quoted.  There is no valid
+ reason I can conceive for not handling this "correctly" (correct as in: it
+ should not be an error).
+ 
+ This in my mind should be addressed.  I don't see any technical reason for which
+ it shouldn't, unless there is a spec somewhere which specifically addresses
+ this.
+ 
+ At the very least, this "weirdity" should be documented.
+ 
+ 
+ BTW: if this is to be documented, one workaround is:
+ 
+ <...>
+   <property name="dash" value="-">
+   <...>
+     <arg value="${dash}${dash}">
+ ...
  

Mime
View raw message