Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 44298 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 19:52:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 19:52:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 29256 invoked by uid 97); 8 Nov 2002 19:53:47 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 29240 invoked by uid 97); 8 Nov 2002 19:53:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 29228 invoked by uid 98); 8 Nov 2002 19:53:46 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Message-ID: <020701c28760$7a16a5f0$d1eefea9@homenkf0y0hwu0> Reply-To: "Stephane Bailliez" From: "Stephane Bailliez" To: "Ant Developers List" References: <008b01c2872a$cac1a620$d1eefea9@homenkf0y0hwu0> Subject: Re: TaskContainer and nested data-types Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 20:53:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N You should see a reply from a 'Phileas Fog' via gmane as well. Damn outlook. "Costin Manolache" wrote in message news:aqh39m$esc$1@main.gmane.org... > > I cannot see any reason why they could not. Except enforcing data types > > definition outside for style. > > +1. For what is your +1 here ? I was understanding in your previous mail that you wanted data types to be possible in the container. Is that correct or should I take fresh air and reread your mail ? [...] > If a majority of ant committers don't feel it's a good idea or worth > the pain - then it shouldn't be done. It's not the problem. I agree we can spend our time vetoing and see them flying around but this is the way I see things. I'd rather let people move on. I'm just pointing out that raising 'backward compatibility' flag only when it suits is no good. I would like you to explain me how you could possibly take the responsability of enforcing data types 'outside' the container knowing that it would break build files and at the same time not agreeing to change the javac debug flag back to normal ? ok, this is a bad example for you since you agree on both sides but I think you get the idea. :) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: