Not that I am giving up on my proposal or anything :-)
But since I think they both can coexist as tools for people to use as
they please,
How about structuring this local variables scope as follows:
<propertyscope>
<propertyscope>
<property name="1" scope="local" value="A"/>
<property name="2" scope="super" value="B"/>
<property name="3" scope="global" value="C"/>
<echo> ${1} ${2} ${3} </echo>
</propertyscope>
<echo> ${1} ${2} ${3} </echo>
</propertyscope>
<echo> ${1} ${2} ${3} </echo>
OUTPUT:
A B C
${1} B C
${1} ${2} C
Default for "scope" is "global".
It is simple, it is clear to the programer what is he doing.
It allows passing to callers just some of the info. I.e a way to return
a value
without global effect. And it cover all the cases of prefix and such
by only modifying a couple of places.
Now, I still will fight until convinced the implementation does not
break
some BC assumption. :-P
But what do you think?
Problems:
You still need a way to shadow a property without defining it (maybe
scope="shadowed"?).
Jose Alberto
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
