Daniel Barclay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you think Ant2 can be different? Peter's reply wasn't > encouraging.
Yes, I do (think, that it _can_). If you take a look at Conor's description of mutant (his proposal for Ant2), it allows for a build file like this: <project name="super-simple"> <mkdir dir="classes" /> <javac src="src" dest="classes" /> <jar jarfile="product.jar" basedir="classes" /> </project> Same holds true for frANTic, another proposal submitted by James Cook months ago. > (Was he just talking about Ant1?: > > >Why not either: > >- let any task appear at the top level, or > > that was -1ed ages ago as could lead to heaps of complexity. It > could also lead to target-less scripts. I can't remember that it had been vetoed ... > >- define an initialization target (when a target has some > >distinguished name like "init" or something, every other target > >implicitly depends on it) > > This was done and users screamed for blood ;) Yep. The very early Ant had an implicit init target. Nowadays we prefer to be explicit with our dependencies 8-) Stefan
