> -----Original Message----- > From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, 22 March 2002 10:08 AM > To: Ant Developers List > Subject: Re: suggestion for if/unless syntax change > > > > --- Adam Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You're not the only one. In myrmidon, we changed if and > unless to test > > > the property value against true/false/yes/no (with unset still > > > evaluating to false). > > > > So, is there a way to test if a property is set? Is this coordinated with > other things like <condition>, <available>, etc? > > All this things need to play toguether, well.
Absolutely. There's a bunch of condition implementations, and you can use whichever one you like, or invent your own. The goal is to allow any condition to be use whereever the standard if/unless conditions are. At the moment, conditions can only be used in a few places: <condition>, <waitfor>, <fileset>, and (almost) <if>. More on the way ... BTW, <available> is just a condition now, rather than a task. And it's been split up into <class-available>, <resource-available>, <file-exists>, etc. > > IMHO, a much more useful thing (instead of changing completely > the meaning of 'if') > is to actually let it check for a particular value. I guess I > wrote such a patch > in ANT 1.1 (or was it 1.0). > > <target .... if='prop=true'/> > > this is a fully backward compatible and more useful thing to have, IMO. > Well, arguably more useful. This is why we want to get away from forcing a particular test, and let the build file writer decide which is more useful for them. on the other hand, we do want to come up with a reasonable default test, to use as shorthand. Adam -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
