----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The particular case of using <tstamp> to time builds is probably better
> handled by a listener. Extending, say, the XML logger to put a timestamp
> against each message would be fairly easy.
Yes!
> Even using <tstamp>, you could still achieve the same effect with
immutable
> properties simply by using a different property each time.
Yes! I knew this, but didn't think of it as a counter-argument to letting
<tstamp> be immutable to DSTAMP, TSTAMP, and TODAY. And actually, why
aren't these just set automatically at the start of the build without having
to manually specify <tstamp>?! :) - this would actually make life a bit
easier so you could specify other properties relying on a datestamp before
the first <target> declaration rather than having to have an 'init' target
do this for you.
Boy, I sure am making a lot of work for myself, huh?! Or stirring up
trouble.
Erik
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
