On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Every time the debate starts again, and committers start refusing > this generalized if/unless issue to save me from shooting myself in > the foot, it makes my cringe. If you don't want to use it, then > don't.
My point is that people will not look for a different solution when they find one that meets the way the think it should work. > Does Ant really want to be swallowed by Jelly? That won't happen. Jelly shows that one can use Ant inside scripty stuff without forcing it into Ant's core - this is how it should be IMHO. > And personally, the if/unless/antcall debate would be moot if the > nested <depends target/if/unless> with proper static dependency > analysis was introduced, I must admit that I had not followed the discussion of that at all. All I can find ATM is a patch in bugzilla that on its own doesn't tell me how it would solve this discussion. I don't see the benefit of the task over splitting test2 in three targets in the description. > The refusal to embrace XML namespace, which are increasingly being > used with XML and is a natural fit to partition XML dialect, is not > a good sign either. Who refused to embrace it? There are just different opinions on what they should be used for and how. > Maybe I'm making it more dramatic than it really is, I hope so. Stefan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
