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 15:34:38 GMT
Steve Loughran wrote:

> Gus Heck wrote:
>>> I don't think there's such a thing as experimental stuff. It's 
>>> either in or
>>> not, and once in, it must be backward compatible.
>>> I'm sorry so few people chimed in on the subject of overloading the 
>>> meaning
>>> of ${name} in Ant. If this could be changed, then I'd have an 
>>> enthusiastic
>>> +1, but as it stands, I'm -1 or maybe -0.
>>> --DD
>> I agree 100%.
>> I also would like some feedback on my target access modifier patch, 
>> if possble
>> (see
>> I have mentioned this to a couple of people, including the friend who 
>> introduced me to ant in the first place and all thought the idea was 
>> good. I would like it to get in 1.6 if possible.
> I am worried about the interaction between public/private and the 
> inclusion mechanism. Will people expect object style access modifiers 
> to  work with inclusion, such that targets marked private can not be 
> called by included content?
I am similarly concerned and so I would like it considered before back 
compatablity constrains us with import etc. Personally, the private 
public distinction I have made (as I have implemented it) could be 
called non-user and user as easily as it only effects the ability to 
access things from the command line. I tried to write it in a way that 
other access tags could be used, to create a broader continum, though I 
havn't gone so far to set it up to handle independant flags. (such that 
user/non-user could be independant from import/no-import)

My patch is just a suggestion, and I am looking for feedback on how it 
could be improved, or made to play nicely with things like import.


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

View raw message