Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 10:12 23/4/01 -0700, Daniel Rall wrote: > >Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Can you give me a (good) use case where XSLT would not suffice? > > > >Complex string manipulation. > > thats not a use case thats an feature of language - give me a use case in a > build file.
Build stamp formatting. > >> >Of course the point is simplicity of use. I am not sure we will gain that > >> >with XSLT. We will need something taylored to ANTs needs. > >> > >> Feel free to create a new language - xslt has the advantage of being > >> standard and well known. Sure it is not very pretty or simple but every > >> alternative is complex. If you have looked at any of the alternate systems > >> that aren't just a morass of scripts (ie automake, imake, etc) they all > >> have that complexity/power balance. > > > >Velocity's markup is dirt-simple. > > Velocity's markup is simpler - requirexs learning both of language and > whats is in the context though. Also non-standard. True, which is why I like your pluggable transformation system idea. Daniel
