On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, how do we want to implement <macrodef> attributes:
> current
> [ ] as textual substitution ~ 4
> [ ] as "real" Ant properties ~ 2
>
> undecided ~ 1
only counting the "binding" votes would result in 1/2/1, so neither
choice has received enough binding votes by now. Dominique, Jose
Alberto and Steve know that I'm not ignoring their votes, but
technically they are non-binding.
> If macrodef attribute are to be implements as substitutions, what
> should be the notation? (where x is the attribute name)
>
> [ ] as ${x} (look like ant properties)
-1, too confusing.
> [ ] as @x
-1 doesn't work if you want to concatenate an expanded attribute and
some other text, i.e.
<attribute name="foo"/>
<attribute name="foobar"/>
is @foobarbaz the expansion of foo plus the literal text barbaz or is
it the attribute foobar plus the literal text baz - or something
completely different?
> [ ] as ${attribute:x}
-1 - still looks too much like a property and collides with existing
properties that's name starts with "attribute:" (unlikely but
possible).
> [ ] as $(x)
> [ ] as @{x}
either one works for me - as well as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
