ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Reilly <>
Subject Re: Ant "roles"
Date Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:43:09 GMT
Hi Matt,
I have not been able to respond as my work commitments
are extreme at the moment.

I do not like roles (although I did write an implementation)
as it would be like the following in a  language:

Integer x = 1;
Complex x = (8, 10);

Complex z = (-1, 9);

Complex y = x + z;

The compiler in this case knows which "x" to pick
based on the context.

I do not know any language like that  (I am sure that
there are a few!) but I feel it would be confusing to
users. For the simple case of getting the correct "and", it
may not be too bad, but the feature could be misused and
people could wind up with impossible to debug build

I do not using XML namespaces to denote ant core types.
Traditionlly ant build files have been free of namespaces (until
ant 1.6 they were not possible). It has been IMO a reason for
ant's success (see the demise of jelly). The build files are 
easy-to-read - and free of
clutter. Using XML namespaces
are fine for using a small number of external antlibs  - although
I would have preferred a simple prefixing mechanism (water
under the bridge now).


Matt Benson wrote:

>Peter:  I'd like to continue to have your input in the
>roles discussion continuing on the ResourceCollections
>thread.  I really want any solution we choose to have
>your blessing on it since namespaces are (IMO) the
>most direct solution so far and those are in a large
>way your own.
>Thanks and regards,
>Do you Yahoo!? 
>Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. 

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

View raw message