On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 06:04, Craig Longman wrote:
> On Thu, 2001-09-20 at 13:17, Diane Holt wrote:
> > --- Craig Longman <craigl@begeek.com> wrote:
> > > 1) it seems like some way of quickly comparing a property to some value
> > > would be helpful. as an '=' is almost certainly never going to be a
> > > valid character in a property, this kind of thing should work pretty
> > > well:
> > > <target name="target" if="some.property=hello"/>
> > > <target name="target" if="some.property=goodbye"/>
> >
> > Diligently (very very :) asked for a looong time ago, and turned down
> > flat. (I ended up having a modified Target.java for quite awhile for that
> > very reason. With the advent of <condition> in 1.4, that can finally
> > [yay!] go away.)
>
> any valid reason why it was turned down? just not something the
> maintainer(s) liked?
> the condition in 1.4 might help me for somethings, but it is so
> verbose. one thing i've never liked about so many projects, is the
> tendency to making something so verbose it is no longer readable. the
> '=' option mentioned here is so much more readable than a multi-line
> condition tag, and is also right in the target tag, which is where you'd
> expect it to be.
Because as soon as we did that there would almost imeadiately be someone who
wanted != and then probably < or > or ...
Before too long you could have
<target name="target" if="((x='y')&&(y>z+u))||(a~=b)"/>
The if/else target attributes were originally added with much objection from
ant-dev and there are some (ie me) who would like to see them removed
altogether ;)
> <target name="foo" depends="before" after="bar">
> ...
> </target>
Looks like
<target name="bar" depends="foo" />
<target name="foo" depends="before"/>
> will look at this. but again, sounds like a lot of typing just to
> silence a target. thanks.
More control will occur in Ant2.
> not sure either. i will look into it perhaps. i was thinking that the
> same analogy as the java access would work. having a public/private
> type of attribute. probably a public defaulting to yes. i think that
> this would make sense to have. ant seems to really encourage multiple
> targets, but it could be dangerous if an internal only target was
> invoked directly. i'll see.
It has been proposed and KBed before but it may make it in come Ant2.
--
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------*
| You can't wake a person who is pretending |
| to be asleep. -Navajo Proverb. |
*------------------------------------------------*
|