ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject RE: Converter Area of Concern
Date Thu, 31 May 2001 11:28:40 GMT
At 08:21 PM 5/31/01 +1000, Tim Vernum wrote:
>From: Stefan Bodewig []
>> >>Not entirely, at least for the two interpretations I've given, they
>> >>belong to (2) as well.  If I define a new task/type, I may need a
>> >>custom converter.
>> > 
>> > Possibly but should we allow/encourage that sort of action?
>> How would I use my new data type if I cannot supply a converter for
>> the ${} expansion of it?  Yes, I think we should allow that.
>What sort of data-types are people likely to use?
>I would expect to mostly see specialised filesets etc, in which case
>the default ${} would be sufficient.

I tend to agree. In most cases toString() works fine. As no one but me
seems to want generic type->type translation I think this will be all that
is required. Can you give a use case where toString()+limited set of
converters would not be sufficient.



| "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               |

View raw message