From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Thu, 23 May 2002 23:11, James Strachan wrote: > From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Be warned that there is virtually no chance of it actually getting into > > core. > > > Any reason why? > > Mainly as Ant is not intended to be a scripting language and most people don't > want to see it become one (better to use python/javascript/perl/whatever if > you want fully script environment). Putting a return statement in <ant/> > effectively makes <ant/> a method/funciton call which has been vetoed several > dozen times through out ants history and my guess is it woul dbe vetoed again > ;)
I understand - though its wierd that <ant> allows references to be passed in (method/function call arguments) but that references can not be passed back. For defining classpaths, which are absolutely crucial to compiling, running java and unit tests, it seems bizarre that we can't have a common build.xml for defining such things and reuse them across other build.xml documents. i.e. if we're gonna allow <ant> at all, which is effectively like a method call, and allowing arguments to be passed in, then absolutely disallowing any return value (a single classpath reference is all I want) seems a little strict and inconsistent. Though I'm happy to go with whatever the community thinks best; this can always be a feature in Maven rather than Ant. James _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
