>>>>> "sr" == rubys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
sr> Stefan Bodewig wrote: sr> If we believe that users should be aware of the distinction sr> between javac-like things (tasks), and taskdef-like things sr> (declarations), then we shouldn't encourage people to develop bad sr> habits to begin with. >> Agreed - you could remove the "if" part and we'd still agree >> though. sr> Actually, I don't see the need to keep people aware of such sr> distinctions. The less that people have to learn to use this sr> tool, the better, IMHO. No, I didn't want to imply we'd agree on "we believe that users should be aware". I meant, you could just say we shouldn't encourage people to develop bad habits to begin with. and nobody is going to object. I still feel there is a difference between tasks and declaration type things. But I agree it's not really necessary to force this distinction onto (new) users. Let's see where we are: 1. You've convinced me that tasks outside of targets are a good thing with the "no targets at all" example. If I want this functionality I'll need to allow for tasks outside of targets in the general case - still don't like it but there is no other way taking the simplicity goal into account. 2. I still want the depends attribute on taskdefs to allow users that don't want tasks outside of targets to generate their taskdefs on the fly. Stefan
