Hi, * Jaroslaw Kowalski wrote on 11.07.2004 (20:03): > My vote: let's NOT support it - I'd say more - let's disallow it. Simplicity > is an important thing.
Let me propose a compromise, and let me tell you why: I like NAnt - one reason is, that after a short phase of learning, everyone is able to use NAnt.Making it unneccesarily more complex is something I would disagree - if it's NAnt or something else doesn't really matter. But: The possibility to explicitly name a task is helpful - especially when someone writes a custom concat task without knowing NAntcontrib's concat task, giving it to the coworker -> bang. But don't we already have a possibility to decide what task is used? My personal version task uses my namespace. So why don't we give a task the complete name : namespace + taskname. Tasks in NAnt.* namespaces would be referenced without the namespace. And if there is no task xyz, tha tasks name in the script wouldn't be namespace.xyz but xyz. -sa -- sa at programmers-world dot com http://www.livingit.de Internet sites: http://www.not2long.net - Make long links short Boomarks online: http://www.mobile-bookmarks.info ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com _______________________________________________ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
