ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dominique Devienne <>
Subject RE: reverse glob mapper pattern?
Date Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:15:44 GMT
If you look back at the thread, you'll see that Diane's solution simulates
the use of a nested <mapper> in <delete>, because <mapper> is currently
supported for this task. You'll also see that the <present> selector selects
the wrong files, and that it cannot be made to select the right ones
(AFAIK), thus the need for the second <mapper> in <delete>.

The current turn around of using <PathConvert> with the caveat of pathname
transformation looks like a hack to me.

OTOH, I did just now realize that a <mapper> doesn't make sense for a task
that takes a single pathname, as opposed to <copy> which takes two... So it
appears it might be a deficiency of the selectors not being able to select
the right files!?!?

Did we miss something Bruce? Thanks, --DD

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Bodewig [] 
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: reverse glob mapper pattern?

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Dominique Devienne <> wrote:

> Shouldn't delete simply take a <mapper>, as does <copy>

I don't think so, what would you use it for?  Isn't the <present>
selector (which accepts a <mapper>) all that is needed (sorry, I
haven't followed the thread very closely)?


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

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

View raw message