Humm, OK. I see. At one point I wondered (aloud) whether one should allow a <propertyset> to refer to an undefined property, and I was leaning on the side of not allowing it. <condition> sets properties, and to respect immutability, the property it sets shouldn't exist, right? Thus is wouldn't work!?!?!? --DD
-----Original Message----- From: Diane Holt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 5:56 PM To: Ant Users List Subject: RE: fail-safe O/S-dependent operations idiom? --- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And Diane, I'm not sure I follow the link between <condition> and > <propertyset>? I was just thinking it'd be nice to be able to set more than one property in a single <condition>, so maybe <condition> could be enhanced to allow for a nested <propertyset> (but maybe it's not the right thing to use for that -- dunno, just thinking out loud :) Diane ===== ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com -- 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]>
