On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Tim Vernum wrote:
> > It might (or might not) make more sense to have something like
> > (excuse my lack of javascript knowledge)
> >
> > function attributes() {
> > return ({ "test" });
> > }
> >
> > rather than needing to have setXXX methods for everything.
>
> +1, and a task.getAttribute( "test" )
>
> I was thinking about another form of scripting would be to turn a
> sequence of tasks ( == target ) in a task that can be called with
> params.
>
> <targetdef target='foo' name='footask' >
> <param name='param1' />
> ...
> </targetdef>
>
> With the behavior beeing that of <antcall>
> Again, something like that can be implemented as a taskdef-like
> task in ant1.x, in an add-on jar.
Not without other extreme uglies being introduced that the committers have
vetoed time and time again. It would almost mandate scoping or mutable
properties and recursive property reolution which has also been vetoed.
However a viable alternative is something Bevan Arps submitted recently.
--
Cheers,
Pete
------------------------------------------------------------
militant agnostic: i don't know, and you don't know either.
------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
