ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Reilly <>
Subject Re: <macrodef> and local
Date Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:23:48 GMT
It is not only with macrodef's that folk want "if/unless", but
macrodef is a bit more obvious because of it's use as a replacement for
<antcall> used as a sub-routine.

Using constructed property names is a good work-around for
the lack of local properties. But it is a work-around, and there
are some cases where true local properties would be more easily
be used.

The <break> task is interesting. I am concerned however about
how third party task containers would work with it.


Magesh Umasankar wrote:

>From:       Matt Benson <gudnabrsam () yahoo ! com>
>Date:       2004-06-23 15:02:54
>>I cringe at the thought of the number of "unique
>>properties" that could be floating about resulting
>>from this...
>Is the user community complaining?  The only issue
>that seems to come up every now and then is lack of 
>straight-forward support like if/unless/depends on 
>macrodef and I'd like to see us address that.  I haven't
>seen a real-world use-case where the only way to
>solve an issue is by using locals inside macrodef.
>Hijacking the topic a bit...
>Instead of adding if & unless attributes to macrodef, 
>I suggest adding a new task <break> that can be placed
>at arbitrary locations inside a task container to stop
>further tasks in that container from executing.  Cleaner
>compared to if/then/else constructs and is not tied to 
>macrodef alone.
><break> is smiliar to <fail> except that it re-routes
>control to the next task container instead of totally
>stopping the build process.
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message