Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 93741 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2003 17:04:21 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Sep 2003 17:04:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 63143 invoked by uid 500); 3 Sep 2003 16:37:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 63091 invoked by uid 500); 3 Sep 2003 16:37:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.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 dev@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 63000 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2003 16:37:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO olinexvs01.olin.edu) (4.21.173.2) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Sep 2003 16:37:48 -0000 Received: from olinexfe01.olin.edu ([10.1.15.93]) by olinexvs01.olin.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 3 Sep 2003 12:36:26 -0400 Received: from cognition.olin.edu ([4.36.33.205]) by olinexfe01.olin.edu (SAVSMTP 3.0.0.44) with SMTP id M2003090312362600740 for ; Wed, 03 Sep 2003 12:36:26 -0400 Message-ID: <3F5617DD.80408@cognition.olin.edu> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 12:33:33 -0400 From: Gus Heck Reply-To: gus@cognition.olin.edu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: Getting 1.6 out the door References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Sep 2003 16:36:26.0647 (UTC) FILETIME=[84FE5A70:01C37239] X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Costin Manolache wrote: >Dominique Devienne wrote: > > > > >>As I've been saying all along, lets just introduce a new (unique) notion >>for attribute/variable expansion (at use time rather than definition >>time), which >>is something new in Ant anyhow. No (or less?) backward compatibility >>issues, and makes it plain and obvious what is what: >> >>${name} it's a property! >>(@name) it's an attribute/variable!!! >> >> > >I think this is a bad idea. > >Chosing between macrodef and ant simplicity - I preffer the second. >There are already a lot of complex rules in and and >, I think the last thing we need is a new syntax for "macrodef >variables". > >Costin > > > Is it simpler to add yet another complex rule to the meaning of ${foo} or to attach the new rule to a new syntax that only needs to be learned for the use of macrodef only. Anyone who hasn't used macrodef will see the new syntax in a build and know there is something different going on with (@foo) (or whatever). By contrast, ${foo} will appear to be something the user has seen before, but produce unexpected behaviors... and perhaps bug reports? Furthermore, if the syntax is the same, then one needs both scoping/rules to identify the type of ${} and rules about it's behavior. If the syntax is different there is no need to distinguish it because it is already distinct. One could make all their replace tokens look like properties too, but I suspect this is not a common thing to do for the similar reasons. >>No context, no unnecessary brain cycles to figure out what is what. >> >>I'll be just as glad as the next guy to use , I just don't want >>that >>power to come of the expanse of Ant's simplicitly and user-friendliness. >> >> > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org