Dale Anson wrote:
I've also ran into this problem, which prompted the task that
is now in ant-contrib as a solution. It works a lot like Java's assert
in that it can be turned on or off either through a command line
parameter or by a property. It is a task, so does require build file
modificat
I've also ran into this problem, which prompted the task that
is now in ant-contrib as a solution. It works a lot like Java's assert
in that it can be turned on or off either through a command line
parameter or by a property. It is a task, so does require build file
modification, but it is use
> > One thing that was voted on (positively, I recall), way way back in
> > time, was for Ant2.0 to fail on undefined properties.
>
> Although I've never looked into it, can't you already have it with a
> custom PropertyHelper? If you can ensure that your custom property
> helper is the last one
Steve Loughran wrote:
I suppose the problem was that undefined properties were just ignored,
and you had a hard time debugging this ( I had similar problems many
times ).
you can get those messages if you crank up the verbosity, but you still
need to go through the lines and look at them. I sup
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing that was voted on (positively, I recall), way way back in
> time, was for Ant2.0 to fail on undefined properties.
Although I've never looked into it, can't you already have it with a
custom PropertyHelper? If you can ens
Costin Manolache wrote:
Steve Loughran wrote:
I know Ant2.0-the-rewrite is essentially dead (and essentially
obsolete through evolution in the codebase), but I still think we
ought to consider using the name as and when the time is appropriate.
If we add enough interesting stuff to 1.7, it could
Steve Loughran wrote:
I know Ant2.0-the-rewrite is essentially dead (and essentially obsolete
through evolution in the codebase), but I still think we ought to
consider using the name as and when the time is appropriate. If we add
enough interesting stuff to 1.7, it could be the time.
Please, no
