ail
direct.
Mark
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 23 July 2002 15:40
> To: 'Mark Griffiths'; 'Nant-Developers (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: [nant-dev] IFTask PropertyMissing parameter?
>
>
> I agree with th
M
> To: Nant-Developers (E-mail)
> Subject: [nant-dev] IFTask PropertyMissing parameter?
>
> Does anyone have a problem with adding a property to the If task
allowing
> you to check to see if a property is missing? The reason I see the
need
> for
> this is to test for negation
Griffiths [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 3:28 AM
To: 'Nant-Developers (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [nant-dev] IFTask PropertyMissing parameter?
Kevin's requirements is exactly why I submitted the patch that allows
properties to be explicitly passed to a build file. In
Scott
> Hernandez
> Sent: 22 July 2002 22:41
> To: 'Nant-Developers (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: [nant-dev] IFTask PropertyMissing parameter?
>
>
> I'm not sure why multiple logical checks are a problem.
>
> Maybe the simplest solution is to create an which is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:nant-developers-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Richard Caetano
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 11:23 PM
> To: Scott Hernandez; 'Nant-Developers (E-mail)'
> Subject: Re: [nant-dev] IFTask PropertyMissing parameter?
>
> I hope this is not to
--
From: "Scott Hernandez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Nant-Developers (E-mail)'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 5:27 PM
Subject: RE: [nant-dev] IFTask PropertyMissing parameter?
> Yep, that is a great idea.
>
> I'm a little worri
gt; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:nant-developers-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Shaw, Gerry
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 5:17 PM
> To: 'Nant-Developers (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: [nant-dev] IFTask PropertyMissing parameter?
>
> I'm hoping in the long run to add a
I'm hoping in the long run to add a number of functions to the if/unless
attributes so that we can write the following:
What do people think of that? I could easily imagine a number of other
useful functions that could be implemented.
By placing the test in the if/unless attributes all the ta
Okay. The code is in cvs.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:nant-developers-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kevin Miller
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 2:52 PM
> To: 'Nant-Developers (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: [nant-dev] IFTask PropertyM
Ah, I see your point now. I do like that better as well.
Kevin Miller
-Original Message-
From: Scott Hernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 4:41 PM
To: 'Nant-Developers (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [nant-dev] IFTask PropertyMissing parameter?
I'
x27;; 'Nant-Developers (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: [nant-dev] IFTask PropertyMissing parameter?
>
> I agree with you there but the way If is implemented it considers all
> parameters for the condition. You could limit the task to accept only
one
> logic parameter but then you are lim
e the simplicity of the atomic operation. It is a
slippery slope down the scripting language path.
Kevin Miller
-Original Message-
From: Scott Hernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 4:20 PM
To: 'Nant-Developers (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [nant-dev] IFTask
, 2002 4:20 PM
To: 'Nant-Developers (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [nant-dev] IFTask PropertyMissing parameter?
I was kinda leaning towards an with a not. It is a little more
generic, and doesn't require us to add the negative condition to all the
tests.
> -Original Message-
&g
I was kinda leaning towards an with a not. It is a little more
generic, and doesn't require us to add the negative condition to all the
tests.
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Miller
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 2:16 PM
> To: Nant-Developers (E-mail)
> Subjec
Does anyone have a problem with adding a property to the If task allowing
you to check to see if a property is missing? The reason I see the need for
this is to test for negations. For instance if I use Nant to invoke a child
build with inherit all. The childscript may not wish to override propert
15 matches
Mail list logo
