> From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > From: Gus Heck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > My (non-committer) oppion coincides with Stefan here, with a slight
> > preference for @{x}
> > because it looks like "put the substitution AT this location" when I
> > read it to myself.
> >
>
> Actually if we go for reading value, the advantage of @{x} notation is
> that sounds like "AT(tribute) x" :-)
>
> I think I can live with that.
Unlike Jose Alberto, I think it's a 'good' thing than referencing an
declared attribute of a <macrodef> in its body/impl resembles the XSLT
referencing of a attribute of the current XML element!
The similarities are striking, and the syntax is well known and clearly
documented. The <macrodef> attribute *will* be an XML element attribute
when it's used actually!!!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] feels very natural, and avoids any confusion with ${x}.
It can be easily escaped using the double symbol people like,
so that {@@x} passes thru as the [EMAIL PROTECTED] literal. (After all, I don't
think it's valid to have an XML attribute starting with an @, so
it's free of conflict too.)
The point is not to resemble the existing notation for dereferencing Ant
properties, since that's what it's supposed to be distinct from, which is
why @{x} feels wrong to me (and looks ugly IMHO ;-).
The point is to use a widely used notation for a widely similar purpose,
i.e. the XSLT notation, which as I noted above is so similar to the semantic
of what's being done.
I'm not a committer and all, but to me [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the clear choice for
<macrodef> attribute dereferencing. I'm sure others will disagree ;-)
But no one can escape getting my opinion on the matter ;-)))) --DD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
