From: "Rodrigo B. de Oliveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ian MacLean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jaroslaw Kowalski"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] custom functions
Original Message -
> From: "Ian MacLean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Jaroslaw Kowalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 6:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [nant-dev] custom functions with the scri
gt;
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 6:09 AM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] custom functions with the script task
> Oh really ? ok in that case the namespace attribute will be required.
> Ian
> Jaroslaw Kowalski wrote:
>
> >>I think add the namespace att
Oh really ? ok in that case the namespace attribute will be required.
Ian
Jaroslaw Kowalski wrote:
I think add the namespace attribute but make it non-required. Just the
global namespace if its present. Since none of the built-in functions
reside in the global namespace that shouldn't be a problem.
> I think add the namespace attribute but make it non-required. Just the
> global namespace if its present. Since none of the built-in functions
> reside in the global namespace that shouldn't be a problem.
I'm afraid there's no global namespace ;-( And parser does rely on the fact
that every func
I think add the namespace attribute but make it non-required. Just the
global namespace if its present. Since none of the built-in functions
reside in the global namespace that shouldn't be a problem.
Ian
OK - I think we can do without the definefunctions attribute though.
I'll just make the i
> OK - I think we can do without the definefunctions attribute though.
> I'll just make the implicit script class a FunctionSet behind the scenes
> and remove the constraint that you have to have a "ScriptMain".
What about the namespace?
Jarek
-
OK - I think we can do without the definefunctions attribute though.
I'll just make the implicit script class a FunctionSet behind the scenes
and remove the constraint that you have to have a "ScriptMain".
Ian
Jaroslaw Kowalski wrote:
that should be doable. The class would automatically have t
> that should be doable. The class would automatically have the
> FunctionSet attribute added if definefunctions was true.
>
> but what if you actually wanted to use the constructor to do somthing ?
Why ? Who'll call the construtor? AFAIR it's the ExpressionEvaluator who
does call functions. And t
l Message -
From: "Jaroslaw Kowalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ian MacLean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] custom functions with the script task
Nice.
I also though about
>
> return "some result ";
>
That can't be done because you need the type information for formal
parameters and returned value.
Jarek
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software.
Perforce is the Fast Software Co
quot;Jaroslaw Kowalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ian MacLean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] custom functions with the script task
> Nice.
>
> I also though about it some time ago. Wo
override the default name here.</pre><br>
<tt>Jarek</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>- Original Message -
From: "Ian MacLean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><br>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><br>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 4:31 PM<br>
al Message -
From: "Ian MacLean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 4:31 PM
Subject: [nant-dev] custom functions with the script task
> I just committed a small change to ScriptTask to allow the definition of
> custom funct
I just committed a small change to ScriptTask to allow the definition of
custom functions inside a task instance - see example below:
This is quite nice as it means people can easily prototype new functions
without having to compile and load a dedicated task/function assembly.
Note that the
15 matches
Mail list logo
