--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure we have this distinction yet. If it's in the > distribution, it is in the core.
Sorry, I was making the distinction of invasiveness - is it a purely pluggable task or does it affect the non-task source? > > Exec, however, does *not*. In fact, the internal representation of > > execon is equivalent to "foreach f in fileset, exec x(f)." > > You know my argument 8-) Yep. Crossed postings. :-) > <exec> is not a single file version, it is a no-file version which > happens to work on files in certain circumstances: > > <exec executable="/usr/games/fortune" /> Boy, you're good at this argument stuff. ;-) Still, that doesn't invalidate my point, and in fact, I believe it reinforces it. Since exec has no natural association with *any* files, application of a set of files to an exec task is better handled by a helper - execon today, but perhaps foreach later. roger __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
