>From my point of view, I am sitting with a massive, slow, and messy build script that I would love to convert to using macrodefs instead of antcalls. I am waiting for this to be resolved before proceeding. On the other hand, I can live with what I have for awhile. Some preliminary experiences have indicated problems which I shared with the dev list earlier this week. I imagine that whatever scheme is chosen will require some sizable effort to convert. I would rather not do this in 1.6 and then again in 1.7, unless the conversion path is easy.
What I don't understand in Antoine's question is whether the new notation would have to be scrapped for the new implementation of local in 1.7 or whether it would still apply. Unless this is going to delay the release for months, I would say, get it right, now. Steve Cohen Sr. Software Engineer Sportvision, Inc. scohenATSportvisionDOTcom -----Original Message----- From: Antoine Levy-Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 10:31 AM To: Ant Developers List Subject: <macrodef> attributes as properties or as textual substitutions [was <local>] Here is a new subject. What are the advantages of leaving macrodef with attributes implemented as textual substitutions ? My impression is that the <local> properties are more powerful. Otherwise, of course, if we leave macrodef as it is with just a new notation for the attributes, then we can release 1.6 sooner. If we choose a notation $() for macro attributes (for instance), can we implement macrodef with <local/> in 1.7 ? or will we have a problem of backward compatibility in any case ? Cheers, Antoine -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Freitag, 31. Oktober 2003 17:13 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: <local> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 31 October 2003 15:55, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > No, it matters if the attributes in macrodef are implemented as >> > properties or if they are implemented as textual subsitutions. >> >> OK, but then this becomes the question to decide and not whether we >> need <local> in 1.6, right? > Yes Do we need a different thread to get a wider audience? >> If they are properties, we don't need an alternative. What are the >> difficulties you expect when they are not properties? > > Only the choice of the notation. MSBuild uses $() for its properties and @() for something else - probably Item references at first glance. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
