On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 01:37, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > > I am curious why you see it as a execution time feature. I > > see it in much > > the same way as I see imports in java. Thus I don't see it as > > execution > > time but post-parse, pre-execution time ;) > > In other words, compilation time ;-) > > With a more heavy role for types, libraries, task definitions, etc. There > seem to be natural to have some sort of "compilation" stage (or maybe it > should be called a "declaration" stage), which is more than just syntactic > parsing but it does not involve execution of targets.
that works for me. > If we were to crystalize such stage, I think I would agree with Peter that > <import>, <projectref> and other <type> declarations belong there. I still think we need to allow <typedefs .../> inside projects so you can "compile" a task and then use it in same build file. I see <import> as kinda different from that. > Before I address your questions below, can you show us what kind of syntax > you proposed to represent the example above. In particular, I would like to > understand how you envision B and C referring in their own buildfiles, to > the common D. As I understood <projectref> where associated with a name > that was local to the refering project. projectref does use project local names. However if two projects both reference the same File (or URI as the case may be) then that is same project. The local names could be completely different but they still refer to same underlying project file.
