> From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> b)
> I send an vote the week before about local properties being
> implemented by textual replacement or by using local
> properties. The result was:
>
The vote was about macrodef expanding attributes as local properties.
Just to make things clear.
> committers others
> local properties 2 1
> textual replacement 1 4
> +0 1 0
>
>
> I would like to implement attributes using local properties,
> with a possible option to allow the script writer to specify
> textual replacement.
>
You are the committers and you do whatever you want, but I think this
is the biggest mistake that you can make to ANT (using locals).
Providing both, sounds even more confusing. It means you get the
bad side effects no matter what. (Or will I be able to say "DO NOT USE
LOCALS AT ALL"?)
If that is the case, then at least make it the default.
>
> c)
> I sent a vote on the syntax to use for texual replacement.
> There was a varied response. A number of people liked the
> notation @{x}.
>
That looks fine to me.
> -------------------------------------
>
> I propose to commit local properties and implement attributes
> using local properties for the ant 1.6 beta3 release.
>
> If there are problems with use of local properties as
> attributes, this should be discovered very quickly.
>
I thought we discover them already.
Jose Alberto
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
