On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 03:03, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > From: "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> If adding if/unless attributes to <fail> (or a nested <condition> > >> element for the same task) is the price for this, I am willing to > >> pay it. > > > > Interesting. So what you are in fact saying is to make <fail/> a > > condition container, just like <waitfor/>. > > It could boil down to this, yes. > > > Hummm, can we have conditional targets also? :-) > > We could - we could also add conditions to each and every task, not > that I'd like it 8-). Having this for target probably is a good idea, > though.
yuck - not in my mind. An <if/> task would be sooooooo much more cleaner. -- Cheers, Pete "Reefers and roach clips and papers and rollers Cocaine and procaine for twenty year molars Reds and peyote to work out your bugs These are a few of my favorite drugs." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
