On Wednesday 26 November 2003 10:31, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> > 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.
Opps....
> 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).
Point taken..
> 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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
