Diane Holt wrote: > ... > As to whether targets listed in the "depends" attribute should be executed > in the order of the list -- as long as we're allowing a list to be > specified, it'd be counter-intuitive (read: wrong :) to have it not do > that.
No it wouldn't (be wrong). What if two lists list the same depended-on targets but in different orders? (Target A depends on X and target A depends on Y. You can't list them without choosing an order, so you happen to pick "X, Y". Target B depends on target Y. Target B also depends on target X. You happen to write "Y, X". For "ant A B", do you build X or Y first? There is no answer if you must follow the order in which they're listed, because you can't say "_the_ order in which they're listed," because they're listed in more than one order. (I don't think you'd want to require all lists to list them in a compatible order. That would require the user to figure out a complete ordering that satisfies all partial ordering requirements. That's something the tool should continue doing.) ) I don't think the order of a dependency list should be relevant (except possibly as a default, or as a way it happens to work on which you shouldn't rely). If targets named in the list have some dependency, that dependency should be specified explicitly in those targets' dependencies. Daniel -- Daniel Barclay Digital Focus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
