ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: Vote: <local> for 1.6
Date Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:31:27 GMT
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, peter reilly <> wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 October 2003 15:04, Stefan Bodewig wrote:

>> What is the benefit of making <property> adhere to the scoping set
>> up by <local>?
> The point is that all tasks including <property> see the local
> properties as normal properties.

So it is supposed to behave like all other property setting tasks, I

Currently I tend to agree with Jose Alberto that using a <local>
container would be more intuitive.

Your approach gets very confusing if you add dynamic extent to it,
i.e. if you make <*ant*> inherit local values (as you say yourself).
So I agree with you that <local> - if implemented the way you have
implemented it - should be lexically scoped much like a local variable
in a method.  I wouldn't want to hunt several levels of build files to
find whether one <local> has been shadowing my global value.

I haven't checked, but does you current implementation allow <local>
to shadow use properties?  IMHO it shouldn't.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message