Return-Path: 
 <ant-dev-return-13774-apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive=jakarta.apache.org@jakarta.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 4923 invoked by uid 500); 16 May 2001 01:28:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
list-help: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 4888 invoked from network); 16 May 2001 01:27:56 -0000
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010516113210.01ddea30@mail.alphalink.com.au>
X-Sender: gdonald@mail.alphalink.com.au
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:32:10 +1000
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
From: Peter Donald <donaldp@apache.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]Re: if and unless attributes for all Tasks
Cc: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <20010516003020.23026.qmail@web9302.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <3B01934B.F231E773@hereuare.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N

At 05:30  15/5/01 -0700, Roger Vaughn wrote:
>--- Alan George <alang@hereuare.com> wrote:
>> Roger Vaughn wrote:
>> 
>> > An if/unless uber-task would eliminate the need
>> for
>> > this, but since Ant doesn't (yet?) support nested
>> > tasks, could be difficult to implement.
>> >
>> 
>> I'm not sure what you mean above, but the below
>> patch implements an
>> if/unless for everything that 'isa' Task.
>> 
>> -alan
>
>Not that it matters, but this was what I meant:
>
>  <target name="t1">
>    <if name="some.property">
>      <task1>
>      <task2>
>    </if>
>  </target>
>
>I seriously doubt we'll ever see (need?) nested tasks,
>so I don't expect this to happen.  But since it was so
>easy to write the patch, I don't see why it's a big
>issue.
>
>How about it folks?  It doesn't break your current
>scripts or change the way you work, and you don't have
>to use it if you don't want it, so why not include it?

Sounds like:
Why not add Blah It doesn't break your current
scripts or change the way you work, and you don't have
to use it if you don't want it, so why not include it?

replace Blah with one of:
* conditional operators in if attributes (&&, ||, () etc)
* if/while/for tasks
* if/unless attributes on all tasks
* the ability to have no target definition (just one tasklist)
* some other feature that has been -1'ed in the past and good reasons given
for it

Read the archives to understand why we don't subscribe to that kind of
policy and why that in particular your request will be -1'ed ;)

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               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*