On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 01:25, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > > A Workspace contains Projects. So if a property is shared between all > > these projects it is in the Workspace scope. However if you are trying to > > treat Targets as methods then it makes less sense - but that is not the > > type of interpretation we want to support anyways so no loss there. > > This is actually what I am against, the concept of some global space that > allow things to communicate by side effect.
who saids the scope will be writeable ? > > > Well, if you look at some ot the other proposals for scoping rules, you > > > see two things floatings around: mutability and global properties. Both > > > are there as a way for people to do something in an <ant> call and > > > obtain results by global side effects. Now, if there is an actual need > > > for being able to retrieve information from subordinate build processes > > > <returns> is much more modular than global variables. > > > > Again - treating targets as methods is not and nor will ever be - > > recomended or supported behaviour. > > From the buildfile for ANT: > > <target name="main" > description="--> creates a minimum distribution in ./dist"> > <antcall inheritAll="false" target="dist-lite"/> > </target> And tell me - how many times have the committers stated that they hate this? or that this is an ugly hack ? > The truth of the matter is that <ant> and <antcall> are method calls > or (procedure calls, strictly speaking). > They pass arguments (by value), they create a new environment in > the stack, they execute "code", and the environment is released at > the end. And more to the point, people use it that way. > > I do not see how you plan to unsupport its ussage. yes ... and you do it by choice. -- Cheers, Pete -------------------------------- These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along. --------------------------------
