ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antoine Levy-Lambert <anto...@antbuild.com>
Subject <macrodef> attributes as properties or as textual substitutions [was <local>]
Date Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:31:23 GMT

Here is a new subject.

What are the advantages of leaving macrodef with attributes implemented as
textual substitutions ?

My impression is that the <local> properties are more powerful.

Otherwise, of course, if we leave macrodef as it is with just a new notation
for the attributes, then we can release 1.6 sooner.

If we choose a notation $() for macro attributes (for instance), can we
implement macrodef with <local/> in 1.7 ? or will we have a problem of
backward compatibility in any case ?

Cheers,

Antoine

-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
Gesendet: Freitag, 31. Oktober 2003 17:13
An: dev@ant.apache.org
Betreff: Re: <local>


On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, peter reilly <peter.reilly@corvil.com> wrote:
> On Friday 31 October 2003 15:55, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, peter reilly <peter.reilly@corvil.com> wrote:
>> > No, it matters if the attributes in macrodef are implemented as
>> > properties or if they are implemented as textual subsitutions.
>>
>> OK, but then this becomes the question to decide and not whether we
>> need <local> in 1.6, right?
> Yes

Do we need a different thread to get a wider audience?

>> If they are properties, we don't need an alternative.  What are the
>> difficulties you expect when they are not properties?
>
> Only the choice of the notation.

MSBuild uses $() for its properties and @() for something else -
probably Item references at first glance.



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


Mime
View raw message