ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gus Heck <>
Subject Re: Getting 1.6 out the door
Date Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:26:29 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

> peter reilly wrote, On 01/09/2003 20.10:
>> On Monday 01 September 2003 16:43, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> ...
>>> It's not all about power, or one would use a real programming language
>>> like Perl or Python. <macrodef>, although powerful, complexifies the 
>>> rules
>>> of Ant, namely the property expansion one, making it context dependent!
What she said :)

>>> Never underestimate the power and simplicity of context/scope free 
>>> rules.
>>> Although Ant already has scopes with <ant>/<antcall>/<subant>,
>>> property
>>> expansion rules works the same everywhere, and I'd like this to stay 
>>> the
>>> same.
>> <macrodef> follows (I think) the same rules of properties as 
>> <antcall> with
>> inheritall=yes.
> +1

Modeling after antcall...? I am wary of this as antcall is broken at the 
top level. I certainly 
havn't looked at macrodef closely enough to know if it will be subject 
to the same problem, but it makes me wonder. It might even be the case 
that antcall should be deprecated and replaced with macrodef if macrodef 
works at the top level and can truely duplicate antcall's functionality.

 From Nicola Ken Barozzi:

 >Imports should be reusable bits of builds. But instead they carry the 
 >of targets. With macrodef I can finally *create tasks using Ant*.

And so Ant becomes an xml based programming language? Writing tasks in 
java seems preferable to me. I am not opposed to macrodef, but I want 
clear syntax that doesn't make atributes look like properties, and if we 
do have macrotemplates (which I still have some reservations about) I 
think they should have a backwards compatable syntax that is also 
clearly different from both properties and atributes. A clear syntax is 
my biggest gripe here.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message