> Any suggestions for the attribute name: javaccversion "2.1" or "3.0" or
> package "com" or "org" ?
>
Looks like you and Stefan have already worked through this one; thanks for
fixing this!
Yours,
tom
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jene Jasper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Enabling the taskdefs to work with both versions seems pretty
> straight forward.
Great. The task already deals with JavaCC < 2.0 and >= 2.0
differently, so throwing in additional support for 3.0 would be nice.
The difference so far i
Tom,
I noticed your changes. I already downloaded JavaCC 3.0.
Enabling the taskdefs to work with both versions seems pretty straight
forward.
But I think it could be useful to make the taskdefs also work when both
versions are available. In which case there should be an optional attribute
to f
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 10:05, Jene Jasper wrote:
> I have some patches coming up for JavaCC and JJTree concerning some missing
> parameters and also an enhancement for a JJDoc taskdef (code is finished,
> only cvs -diff left on a nightly snapshot).
>
> I could look into a patch for version 3.0 adde
> Not really. 8-) A patch that would enable the tasks to work with
> either version would be appreciated.
Sure thing, will do...
[much typing and testing commences]
Yours,
Tom
.
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: dinsdag 1 april 2003 16:57
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: Re: The JavaCC and JJTree tasks
On 01 Apr 2003, Tom Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If possible we should support both (and I think t
On 01 Apr 2003, Tom Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If possible we should support both (and I think there already is a
>> bugzilla report to that effect, including a patch IIRC).
>
> I poked around Bugzilla for a bit and couldn't find anything.
I was wrong. There is one for JDepend, whic
> Hmm, Gump still uses the old version, so I guess others will be slow
> on switching as well.
Yup, JavaCC version updates have been few and far between. Hopefully
the package name change to org.netbeans.blah means that a full open
sourcing of JavaCC is on the way... this possibility has been ba
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Do we need to be able to support both packages?
Hmm, Gump still uses the old version, so I guess others will be slow
on switching as well.
If possible we should support both (and I think there already is a
bugzilla report to that ef
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 07:23 am, Tom Copeland wrote:
>
> If there's a better way to post these patches, please let me know...
On BugZilla is probably better for tracking progress.
Do we need to be able to support both packages? Changing this is going to
break anybody still using the old versions.
...don't work with the latest JavaCC/JJTree release - JavaCC 3.0 - from
http://www.experimentalstuff.com/Technologies/JavaCC/index.html. The
reason for this is that the package names have changed.
Here's a patch to fix JavaCC.java and JJTree.java
===
11 matches
Mail list logo
