Diane Holt wrote: > > --- Daniel Barclay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > Sure there is. Given 'ant A B', it'll run X,Y,A,Y,X,B; running 'ant B A' > runs Y,X,B,X,Y,A.
Ant builds X and Y twice? (Am I mixing up my memory of how make works with my new (and not-yet- completely-learned) knowledge of Ant? I though Ant analyzed dependencies and avoided building targets that had already been build. Does it not do that?) > 1. I don't have a problem with requiring a build-file writer to know what > order things should get built in -- if they don't know that, then they > shouldn't be writing the build-file :) No--the build-file writer has to know the individual dependencies. They shouldn't have to figure out a complete ordering that satisfies all the partial orders. Daniel -- Daniel Barclay Digital Focus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
