----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: <ant>
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 20:50, Steve Loughran wrote:
> > One further thing I was debating doing, but want to get a reaction
first,
> > is to tweak it so that if the target is "" then we treat that the same
as
> > undefined, and execute the default.
>
> -1
>
> I know people who use it with antcalls as a fallback. At one stage some of
> the Avalon build files also used it. I think it is an ugly hack but
> unfortunately it is here to stay now ;(
oh I see, so they can use it as an explicit default. Ugly. ugly ugly. Why is
avalon always on the cutting edge of build file abuse :-)
How do you propose we specify in ant 1.x that the target attribute of the
<ant> task should refer to the default of the project?
Presumably these targets were added so that if you invoked the build file
with the target attribute bound to an empty property, the "" target was
executed instead. I am proposing formalising that with an invocation of the
empty target mapping to calling default.
I would like to see anyone who has current examples of this practise to see
if they are just being use to remap to the default entry point like this
<project name="foo" default="all">
<target name="" depends="all"/>
....
>
> > This leads to predecessor question. Should the empty string be a valid
name
> > for a target. I think not, if we agree then we can stop it, and then I
> > could set <ant target=""> to mean default.
>
> definetly for ant2.
well in that case ant1.x should issue a warning whenever a build file target
of a tenuous name ("", "," ...) is declared, cos it is unlikely that they
will work in ant2, and it also means that the automigrate tool/transform
will also have to translate target names as well.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
