ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: <available> / <condition> breaking immutability
Date Tue, 27 Nov 2001 19:26:29 GMT
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 05:51, Bruce Atherton wrote:
> At 01:36 PM 11/27/2001 +1000, Robert Watkins wrote:
> >The particular case of using <tstamp> to time builds is probably better
> >handled by a listener. Extending, say, the XML logger to put a timestamp
> >against each message would be fairly easy.
> >
> >Even using <tstamp>, you could still achieve the same effect with
> > immutable properties simply by using a different property each time.
> Either of these solutions will work, but only by adding unnecessary
> complexity for the user. 

god no. Its simplifying for the user. Any programmer who reuses the same 
variable to mean completely different things ... and thinks it is the "right 
thing" .... they would be called a fool. Yet you seem to think it is ok for 
build engineers ...

> And why? Because you are trying to keep your
> conceptual view of what a "Property" is as straightforward as possible in
> the design.

Why? because we think it is easier for the user for things to behave 

> A design should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. When the tradeoff
> is between elegance of design and ease of use for the user, I'm thinking
> you are going for too simple.

So far you are the only one claiming that having multiple sets of rules for 
property depending on the whims of a the particular task writer or due to 
historical factors is a good thing. The names of these tasks you just need to 
memorize and there is no where in recorded documentation that this behaviour 
should violate the bahevour of standard ant property rules. And you think 
this is easier? 



Sorry, I forgot to take my medication today.

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

View raw message