Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Message-ID: <3F4E838E.3080604@iseran.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:34:54 -0700
From: Steve Loughran <steve_l@iseran.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030701
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ant Developers List <dev@ant.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Getting 1.6 out the door
References: <D44A54C298394F4E967EC8538B1E00F10248C73B@lgchexch002.lgc.com>
 <3F4E73F5.6080500@cognition.olin.edu>
In-Reply-To: <3F4E73F5.6080500@cognition.olin.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Gus Heck wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't think there's such a thing as experimental stuff. It's either 
>> in or
>> not, and once in, it must be backward compatible.
>>
>> I'm sorry so few people chimed in on the subject of overloading the 
>> meaning
>> of ${name} in Ant. If this could be changed, then I'd have an 
>> enthusiastic
>> +1, but as it stands, I'm -1 or maybe -0.
>>
>> --DD
>>  
>>
> I agree 100%.
> 
> I also would like some feedback on my target access modifier patch, if 
> possble
> (see http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22020)
> 
> I have mentioned this to a couple of people, including the friend who 
> introduced me to ant in the first place and all thought the idea was 
> good. I would like it to get in 1.6 if possible.
> 

I am worried about the interaction between public/private and the 
inclusion mechanism. Will people expect object style access modifiers to 
  work with inclusion, such that targets marked private can not be 
called by included content?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org