that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] would be handled correctly by textual expansion. Someone
please correct me if I'm wrong.
-Original Message-
From: Jacob Kjome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 11/28/2003 6:39 PM
To: Ant Users List
Cc:
Subject:RE: Ant 1.6 local and macrodef
. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
-Original Message-
From: Jacob Kjome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 11/28/2003 6:39 PM
To: Ant Users List
Cc:
Subject:RE: Ant 1.6 local and macrodef attributes
Thanks for explaining that Peter.
I took
From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
b)
I send an vote the week before about local properties being
implemented by textual replacement or by using local
properties. The result was:
The vote was about macrodef expanding attributes as local properties.
Just to make things clear.
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 10:31, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
b)
I send an vote the week before about local properties being
implemented by textual replacement or by using local
properties. The result was:
The vote was about macrodef
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 11:09, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, peter reilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a)
I sent a vote last week on local properties
and the result was:
committers others (+ votes in bugzilla)
have local in ant 1.6 2
Here is my proposal for you guys to vote on.
Two completely separate votes:
1) Vote on @{x} as the syntax for textual substitutions
of attributes in macrodef.
Once this is settle, we can move on releasing macrodef
in B3 with its fixed syntax.
2) Vote on local, must include decision on syntax,
Message-
From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 11/26/2003 6:15 AM
To: Ant Developers List
Cc:
Subject:RE: Ant 1.6 local and macrodef attributes
Here is my proposal for you guys to vote on.
Two completely separate votes:
1) Vote on @{x} as the syntax
