On 12/4/00 5:30 AM, "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I certainly support unifying properties and the other datatypes. I had
> originally just seen this as making property a string datatype, using
> the same namespace and passing to subprojects, etc. What you are
> suggesting above is a little different. With the above we would probably
> have an explicit string datatype.
As I was just saying to Conor offline -- I think I might be able to go for:
<property name="foo" value="bar/foo.html" type="java.lang.File"/>
Where the property hashtable was a name->object mapping and the default
object type was String. If some other type were specified, then that type
would be constructed with a String constructor taking the value as the
String passed to the constructor.
${foo} is satisfied by getProperty("foo").toString();
--
James Duncan Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
!try; do()
