ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject RE: Another feature request??
Date Thu, 29 Mar 2001 01:05:03 GMT
At 10:44  29/3/01 +1000, Conor MacNeill wrote:
>> At 09:35  29/3/01 +1000, Conor MacNeill wrote:
>> >-1,
>> >
>> >Why change from an explicit declaration of the default target to
>> one based
>> >on implicit convention. You can adopt this convention without
>> changing Ant.
>> >Why force it everyone else?
>> simplicity. One less complexity, one less reason for users to
>> look at build
>> file, etc
>> Cheers,
>One more implicit thing to remember. One more thing not obvious from the
>build file. It is similar to the argument against an "init" target.

Well I would have to disagree ;)

Well known start state is much more easier for the user. Could you imagine
if we had to specify everything all the time?


Is the second approach harder to understand or easier? 

I would say that it is obvious from the build file because all build files
would have the same start state.

As a matter of fact I would alos like to remove the name attribute of
project for it can more simply be represented by

<property name="" value="Foo" />



| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |

View raw message