----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 1:43 AM
> > two non-committers causing trouble! :)
>
> That's not my point. Neither that you or Jose Alberto are
> non-committers, nor that anybody is causing trouble. I value your
> opinion and you know that. It's just that I disagree and that I had
> to point out that I'm not the only one.
Note the smiley above! :)
Disagreement is a good thing - and as I've stated when I first brought this
issue up, I'm a bit on the fence regarding some cases of setting properties.
> > Tasks shouldn't be allowed to override properties.
>
> Why not? Really, if people know what they are doing, why not?
Because it turns Ant into a procedural programming language rather than a
declarative one. That is the main reason I'd like to see immutability
enforced at the API level. I have not been following the scoping
discussions simply because I don't have the bandwidth right now to dig into
as deep as I'd like - and also I'm trying to stay away from too much Ant2
thinking at the moment since 1.x will be with us for a while.
Since we weren't removing the functionality, just adding a deprecation
warning, I'm ok with the warning being removed. Maybe, just maybe, we could
have a command-line switch (-mutable) that removed the warnings, and by
default properties were immutable?! :)))
Erik
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
