Remie Bolte schrieb: > Thanks for the input! > > I found a different way to deal with the problem, without hacks :) > Sometimes it is useful not to be able to find a solution, it allows you to > look back a couple of steps.
hack != bad IMO i use that term for a tricky solution or workaround when the standards don't work as expected or lack a specific feature. You are absolutely right, often you'll find a simple(r) solution after taking a nap or another cup of coffee. Needing a hack is mostly an indicator something went wrong before > Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS) But sometimes i need a hack to make it work. > However, I do still have the question why double expanding is not > implemented. Is there a conceptual issue, are there strong arguments not to > implement it, or is it just hard to do? One of the fundamentals in ant is the immutability of a property once set. There are some collections of anttasks (antelope,antcontrib,antxtras) that provide mutable properties, as there are requests by ant users (btw. it's easy to overwrite properties with <script> and use of the ant api). So if others did it, i believe it wouldn't be that hard to implement for ant core also, probable conceptual problems though !? Of course the ant developers receive the user request for mutable properties and so it appears as AntLib. Maybe that's the way to keep the core ant 'clean', but nevertheless provide requested features. Regards, Gilbert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
