And this gives the opportunity to someone writing a checkstyle-equivalent for Ant build files, with messages like this:
Warning:16: Use of top-level task after the first target Warning: To many calls to <antcall> Warning: ... And a jalopy-like reformatter too ;-) ;-) --DD -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bailliez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 2:31 PM To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: Vetoes are void? was Re: [VOTE] target-less build files - counting results ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick (Gus) Heck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > In fact a colleague of mine just ran into exactly this type of java file > (written by someone else) in some code he is working with. Scary but > there are people out there who do scary things! There is nothing scary, you can have a complex initialization part of the static block like you could compute a table, precompile regex or whatever. The huge difference is this case is as mentionned by Nikola that the code is structured and inside a static block it's not everywhere between the methods with no block nor anything. If there is a target less build file I would be in favor of forcing order and put all elements before <target>, but then again this would break backward compatibility. I can't even think of an initialization stuff that will be triggered at the startup but spreaded all over the build file: top , in between, bottom. Food for nightmare build file but then again it might be a still issue and the one writing this should be shot. Stephane -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
