ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gunnar Boström <Gunnar.N.Bost...@telia.se>
Subject RE: if, unless problems
Date Mon, 11 Dec 2000 07:48:05 GMT
Hi Diane,
Of cause the end result of testing for true/false or set/not-set is the
same. The target is executed or not excuted.

But my point was to make life a bit easier for beginners like me. To make
use of a  property I use the ${} construct, but not in the if/unless
argument which expect a property name! This is very easy to miss (at least I
did).

Gunnar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diane Holt [mailto:holtdl@yahoo.com]
> Sent: den 8 december 2000 18:11
> To: ant-user@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: RE: if, unless problems
> 
> 
> --- Gunnar_Boström <Gunnar.N.Bostrom@telia.se> wrote:
> > I agree that ant shall not become a scripting language and 
> I don't want
> > to include an eqality operator.
> > 
> > Still I belive that testing for the values "true"/"false" 
> in if/unless
> > would make ant more consistent and easier for beginners like me.
> 
> Hi Gunnar,
> 
> I'm all for having if/unless test for value (as the ant-dev 
> list knows all
> too well :), and I have a modified Target.java I use, for 
> that very reason
> -- but I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. If 
> the if/unless
> was modified to test for "true"/"false", then it -would- be 
> testing for a
> value. And it's not clear to me how restricting it to test 
> for only those
> two values would be any different from testing for set/not-set, or how
> that restriction would even work.
> 
> Diane
> 
> =====
> (holtdl@yahoo.com)
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
> http://shopping.yahoo.com/
> 

Mime
View raw message