On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I now see you were serious about your response to my other response > ;-) Did you expect anything else? 8-) >> (1) Allow no tasks to be defined at the same level as <target> >> (this is what Tim Dawson has proposed IIRC). > > When we say "no task" do we actually mean "nothing can be outside a > target"? This is where Peter's "datatype scoping needs to be defined" kicks in. Personally, I don't want to distinguish between the definition of a datatype and a task that does something else. > I also think that if we adopt this proposal, the resulting pattern > for buildfiles will be having all targets expressing dependency on > one "init" target. Which wouldn't be bad IMHO. > So at the end we will finish with a very redundant pattern. Why is that redundant? It makes you think about which properties you really need in a given target and may even lead to cleaner build files. Stefan
