On Tuesday 29 April 2003 16:50, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Jose Alberto Fernandez > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This continues with the two-tier issue, the core conditions of ANT > > you can just named, but the third party ones need to use some funny > > syntax. > > core conditions would use the same funny syntax, if it wasn't for > backwards compatibility, that is. > > But then again this "funny syntax" for potentially highly dynamic > things like the condition or linereader framework makes me back away > from it. I think it also is what made me argue against it about nine > months back 8-) > > OK, so +1 I will upload an implementation of my proposal to night. (minus the adaptor stuff)
> > <condition> > <outofdate> > > it is, with an addXYZ(Condition) method marking it up - I'm not really > fond of any of the proposed naming conventions so far. Whats wrong with add(Condition) ? > > We still need a solution for the ambiguos cases, though. 1.7+ ? Peter
