--- Remie Bolte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
> However, I do still have the question why
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
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.
However, I do still have the question why double expanding is not
implemented. Is there a conceptual iss
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
>> I saw the FAQ, but the workaround deals with making a new
>> property, which is
>> not something that is desirable in my situation.
>> Is there a reason that double expanding is not implemented?
>
> There is an implementation in the sandbox bundled as an AntLib.
> Yo
>I saw the FAQ, but the workaround deals with making a new
>property, which is
>not something that is desirable in my situation.
>Is there a reason that double expanding is not implemented?
There is an implementation in the sandbox bundled as an AntLib.
You could give it try:
Root
http://svn.ap
>Is it possible to resolve a property name like this
>
>${${prefix}.someproperty}
>
>making the prefix variable?
see
http://ant.apache.org/faq.html#propertyvalue-as-name-for-property
Jan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTEC
