On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:01, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > 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 ? > > I have not heard anyone.
I recall myself and Setfan saying so on the public lists. I am not sure about Connor though I thought he disliked treating targets as methods ??? The only committers I can remember who have actually supported this sort of structure was me and Diane. Ironically - I am told it was you who convinced me that this was a bad idea. > In particular given the fact that the above line > could have been rewritten as: > > <target name="main" depends="dist-lite" > description="--> creates a minimum distribution in ./dist" > /> > > 8-) true - but in other cases the reason for using antcall was to work around limitations of ant. > The point of the matter is that eventhough the above situation may be > rewritten to avoid an <antcall> there are plenty of sitiations where > <antcall> is completely valid. And where <antcall> is the more efficient > and clear way to express what is required on a build. And there is plenty of times when perl is the right answer to a question and java is not. However that does not mean java should change to be more perl like. -- Cheers, Pete ---------------------------------------------- Money is how people with no talent keep score. ----------------------------------------------
