ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kuiper, Arnout" <>
Subject RE: Objections against advanced directory scanning
Date Wed, 02 Feb 2000 09:08:35 GMT
From: Bill Petheram []
> > The main problem with this approach is that it only allows
> > recursion on the end of the pattern, not on the beginning,
> > which is essential for a number of situations Ant has to
> > deal with, like filtering out CVS directories, filtering
> > out test directories, etc.
> Normally to exclude CVS directories you would use an exclude pattern.
> I.E don't match any path that contains this pattern.

Of course it is an exclusion pattern that does the filtering,
but that pattern must match any CVS directory on the end of a path.
Therefore you need "recursion" at the beginning, which cannot be
supplied by any other method that has been proposed.

> But it is different from anything else.

Because the other approaches don't give that little bit extra...
Should we refrain from using something more powerful, just because
it's new and a bit different?

> I think you are confusing two issues. One is pattern matching and the
> other is specifying paths.
> Your proposal does both. Whereas they can be separated.

I doubt that, I don't think you understand the power of this matching
concept. You match on complete paths instead of just filenames. This can
only be done if your path is part of the pattern. Therefore
you cannot separate paths from patterns. If you can convince me
otherwise, please do.

> I say again at the cost of users having to do something new and
> different and unlikely to be used by any other package.

Who says it won't be picked up by other packages, once they understand
the power. It has to start somewhere;-)


View raw message