Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
peter reilly wrote, On 01/09/2003 20.10:
On Monday 01 September 2003 16:43, Dominique Devienne wrote:
...
It's not all about power, or one would use a real programming language
like Perl or Python. <macrodef>, although powerful, complexifies the rules
of Ant, namely the property expansion one, making it context dependent!
What she said :)
Never underestimate the power and simplicity of context/scope free rules.
Although Ant already has scopes with <ant>/<antcall>/<subant>, the property
expansion rules works the same everywhere, and I'd like this to stay the
same.
<macrodef> follows (I think) the same rules of properties as <antcall> with
inheritall=yes.
+1
Modeling after antcall...? I am wary of this as antcall is broken at the top level.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22759 I certainly havn't looked at macrodef closely enough to know if it will be subject to the same problem, but it makes me wonder. It might even be the case that antcall should be deprecated and replaced with macrodef if macrodef works at the top level and can truely duplicate antcall's functionality.
From Nicola Ken Barozzi:
>Imports should be reusable bits of builds. But instead they carry the baggage
>of targets. With macrodef I can finally *create tasks using Ant*.
And so Ant becomes an xml based programming language? Writing tasks in java seems preferable to me. I am not opposed to macrodef, but I want clear syntax that doesn't make atributes look like properties, and if we do have macrotemplates (which I still have some reservations about) I think they should have a backwards compatable syntax that is also clearly different from both properties and atributes. A clear syntax is my biggest gripe here.
-Gus
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
