--- Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it makes sense on excludesfile (as it is
> implicitly excluded),
> but not includesfile
Actually, I thought of it the other way around: if
the includes file doesn't exist, the patterns to be
contained won't be included. Maybe that's a
glass-half-empty/half-full question.
>
> On the subject of propertyfile, sometimes I wish
> there was a way of
> saying "must-exist" on a property; still, I suppose
> that is what
> macrodef is for.
>
> On the subject of macrodef, can I express my
> admiration to whoever added
> <condition> to <fail>; it makes life a lot easier...
>
I would blush but since Peter just did in response to
a comment by Antoine my doing it again so soon would
only cheapen the sentiment. But thanks! ;)
-Matt
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
