At 04:45 PM 6/7/01 +0100, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: >> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> At 05:18 PM 6/6/01 +0100, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: >> > >> > lieing, >> >> never accused you of that > >Read again the message I was replying to. I cut & pasted these words from >there.
sure kid - whatever you say - love for you to point out where I accused you of that. >> >> > insane, >> >> never accused you of that >> >> >tirade >> >> is descriptipe of your efforts. >> >> >I have heard your arguments I have not being convinced by >> them. If you want, >> >we can agree to disagree and live it at that. >> >> Most people would who disagree actually give reasons, the conversation >> continues and solution is produced. Interesting that you >> choose not to go >> this path. >> > >I have given reason to you, plenty of them. You do not accept them, fine. >That is your prerogative. It won't make me loose my sleep. right. >> >About my supposedly false statement: >> > >> >> Try this one instead. >> >> <?xml version="1.0"?> >> <project name="test" default="devtest" basedir="."> >> <target name="x"> >> <broken-javac-task-reference/> >> </target> >> </project> >> >> >Imagine that, it did what I said it would. >> >> ooops - seems like you are wrong ... again. >> > >Who said the above project is *syntactically* invalid? The syntax looks >correct to me. Next time read my paragraphs in full. I said (paraphrazing) >"you may run them with -Dyxz... if you want to check for unknown tasks", so >you can. heh - so you check the code runs by running it? "Show me the code" 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 | *-----------------------------------------------------*
