ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: local properties
Date Tue, 26 Oct 2004 05:56:45 GMT
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez
<> wrote:

> How about structuring this local variables scope as follows:
>   <propertyscope>
>     <propertyscope>
>       <property name="1" scope="local" value="A"/>
>       <property name="2" scope="super" value="B"/>

I don't see any use for the super scope myself, but if it helps to
reach consensus ...

> And it cover all the cases of prefix and such by only modifying a
> couple of places.

Mainly <property> and <propertyset> - any other tasks?

Infrastructure would be the same as for the latest local properties
proposal, right?

> Now, I still will fight until convinced the implementation does not
> break some BC assumption. :-P

The best thing to do is to list all your concerns, write unit tests
for them and commit them to Ant's tests before the local patch goes in

> You still need a way to shadow a property without defining it


> (maybe scope="shadowed"?).

I'm afraid this would overload the scope attribute of your proposal.
Which scope is the property going to end up in once it gets defined?


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

View raw message