Ah, I think I understand the pattern here. If only I could embed a picture of a lightbulb in my e-mail and not enrage the list.
Thanks for answering my question (in a way I could understand) Jose!!!! It would be excellent to put this into the manual someplace easy to find. Cheers Jay Walters -----Original Message----- From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:31 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Expanding ${} constructs for all attributes > From: Jay Walters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 6:55 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Expanding ${} constructs for all attributes > > > This gets back to my issue (I know you've already decided > against it, relax, > the truth will set us all free.) > > The mutual exclusivity of the properties do-target1, do-target2 and > do-target3 is your responsibility as the programmer. Now > maybe we can write > an optional ANT task ... > A couple of months ago I wrote a <case> task, that allowed you to inspect the value of a property and set another property depending on it. But it was sutdown, as not worthy, too scripty :-( In any case, the accepted procedure is using the pattern: <property name="X.${X}" value="true" /> <task .... if="X.A" .../> <task .... if="X.B" .../> and so on. Hope this helps, Jose Alberto
