ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Reilly <>
Subject Re: Implicit element for macrodef
Date Thu, 27 May 2004 07:47:39 GMT
Stefan Bodewig wrote:

>On Tue, 25 May 2004, Peter Reilly <> wrote:
>>The implementation does however involve a small Backward
>>Incompatible change to the implementation of MacroInstance.
>I'd say we can live with that.
Should it also go into the infamous ant 1.6.2 ?

(Also, should DynamicConfiguratorNS go into 1.6.2 ?)

>In a response to DD you say that you can't mix an implicit element
>with explicit elements.  Is this really required?  Can't we have an
>implicit catch-all element for the nested elements that don't match
>any explicitly stated nested elements?

It is not strictly required, but it makes the code a good bit easier and 
Also I cannot see the need to mix implicit and explicit elements, the
build scripts that did that would be confusing.

One thing is that the explicit element ignores the namespace uri (for
BC purposes with ant 1.6.1) so mixing implict elements with explicit
elements could be even more confusing.


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

View raw message