At 07:44 28/12/00 -0500, Jason Rosenberg wrote: >Ant is a scripting language. The idea of using a <script> task is a bit >nonsensical. Just extend the Ant Scripting language to do the simple >things we need (there are not too many of these).
ummmmmmmmm ..... Ant is supposed to be a ***declarative*** scripting language. I agree that the use of ant-call makes it procedural but that is only because we needed templating but couldn't rearrange the core dramatically to do it at the time ;) If ant-call was made to be more templatish then ant would return to being declarative. What you seem to want is a ***procedural*** language which I am definetly -1 for a whole bunch of reasons that have been enumerated in the past. >> Right -- anything that happens in the scope of a task is fair game. Now, >> whether or not that task is core or optional is a different story. :) >> > >The fundamental "core" issues are: > > Compound conditonal gating for target execution (if-and-or-not-(nested)). > A priori conditional gating prior to unnecessary dependency execution. > Direct target execution (not just from a "depends" list, or from an antcall). > Ability to update and change the value of a property several times during run-time. perhaps you also want negation, then implication, maybe xor ? ... Guess what you want perl/make - they already exist - lucky you ;) personally I don't relish looking at <target name="foo" condition="a ^ ~(b == (c&d|e^f) ) &d" /> and trying to work out what that means. >Some fundamental "task" issues are: > > if-then-else > switch > loop not a chance of making core. If you want it then create your own tasks. Look to ant-dev archives for reasoning. Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
