Sorry, I wasn't clear. In my example, I was defining a top-level task "shell" that would be linked to a project's specific shell task.
That way, you could do "buildr shell" instead of "buildr myproject:shell" or "buildr myproject:shell:jirb" alex On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh I see, allow the task to be project local, just don't define the > local_task alias. That would work, but again it's not as magical. > > Daniel > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Alex Boisvert <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Yes, but I only have to do it once when I write the buildfile. All > the > > > > times I run the shell, I don't have to cd into a specific directory, > > > > or remember the qualified task name. So if you don't need different > > > > shells for different projects (in the same build), overall there's > > > > much less effort setting it up this way. > > > > > > > The same could be said for the other approach. You could easily have, > > > > task 'shell' => 'myproject:shell:jirb' > > > > in your project and be done with it. > > > > > > > Oh, on a syntactic note, Lispers would know the "shell" much better as > a > > > REPL. What's the preferred terminology? I like shell because it's > short > > > and relatively easy to understand, but maybe I'm the minority. If > > someone > > > is expecting the interactive language shell to be called a "REPL", then > > > they > > > would probably expect `buildr shell` to be some sort of interactive > > command > > > interface to Buildr itself (allowing you to run tasks). Does this seem > > > like > > > a potential problem or should we not fret over it? > > > > > > I think "shell" is the more common and broader name. And as shown > above, > > it's easy to create an alias if you insist on a specific name. > > > > alex > > >
