On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 15:26, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> We should talk about that in the > >> context of Ant2, for now it would give us a major backwards > >> compatibilty problem. > > > > I can not see that - where do you see the compatability problem? > > We already have built-in tasks that have attributes and nested > elements of the same name (see javac with classpath). Tasks may have > chosen to do different things with them (javac does, but this is > silly).
but they are still differentiable .. you said so as much below ;) Which means that there is not likely to be overlap (I would say extremely unlikely). > > Attributes are restricted to primitive types + string and File at > > the moment, > > Not true at all - attributes are restricted to types that have a > constructor using a single String argument, while lements are > restricted to types that have a no-arg constructor. I'd guess it is > not that uncommon for a class to support both types of constructors. oh ;) 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 | *-----------------------------------------------------*
