----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Suppose, though, that Ant 1.x has behaviour that is "incorrect" (as
defined
> by the majority of committers).
Then I'm all for changing it. I'm being swayed by the arguments here, but I
still don't really consider the current behavior incorrect. It depends on
how you define what the patternsets for a fileset are supposed to do.
I agree that your use-cases are good reasons for change, but provided we
don't adversely affect Ant 1.x.
> >There are other glaringly difficult issues with other datatypes that
cannot
> >be resolved in the 1.x codebase.
>
> Would using a "-legacy" flag work for your examples? Or would the APIs
have
> to change?
I think the way DirectoryScanner works (or its usage in a fileset) would
have to change or at least its use the Ant codebase.
> proves time and again, "documenting counterintuitive behaviour = bad,
> fixing counterintuitive behaviour = good".
Ok, ok! :)
But again, I don't necessarily find the current behavior counter-intuitive,
but perhaps thats simply because I've got to much of an under-the-hood
understanding of whats going on.
Erik
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
