--- DONNIE HALE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaah. Out of curiousity, and without trying to start a new religious war
> :), could you summarize the reasons for the rejection? Or perhaps give
> me a keyword that will help me hit the right archived messages?
Basically, it's seen as "too scripty" and the edge of a very slippery
slope. As an example of the type of opposition this propostion tends to
generate, here's a snippet from one of Peter Donald's responses to it:
But if we are going to have equality we may as well have inequality.
And if we have inequality we may as well have negation and perhaps
conjunction and then disjunction, perhaps relational operators as
well - then of course we see the need for approximation, containment,
and the full regular expression suite ;)
We end up with if="(A || !B) && (C~D || D^(E:F)) == !(A || Z)" and
that is less than simple and completely unmaintainable.
I tend to think that's a bit paranoid, and I not only argued for a test
for equality, I modified my version of Ant to allow for it, since I really
really needed one (and no one at that time could offer me any way to not
need one). But with the advent of the <condition> task, while it does tend
to be a bit more roundabout than a simple if="foo=${bar}", I'm more or
less content to let it go.
Diane
=====
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
