Yep. The reverse question is absolutely valid. I did not know that ant was before XPath? But it would make life easier if we had some commonalities across those technologies. Janusz
-----Original Message----- From: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 7:23 AM To: 'Ant Users List' Subject: RE: Why ** instead of // Indeed, I noticed this as well when I discovered this XPATH notation, much later after I learned about the Ant equivalent. I suspect Ant's notation was around before XPATH (or at least before it became more widely known), and maybe the fact that // in pathnames usually works the same as / make it a bad choice as a notation. I didn't check that **/*.class is equivalent to **//*.class in Ant, but for sure src\\com and src\com are equivalent in DOS, and if I remember right, src/com and src//com are also the same on Unix. I could ask the same thing in reverse. Why shouldn't XPATH change // to ** ;-) --DD -----Original Message----- From: Janusz Dalecki (TYCO) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 4:07 PM To: 'Ant Users List' Subject: Why ** instead of // Hi, If I understand the ** pattern in Ant has the same meaning as // in Xpath. Wouldn't it be better to replace ** with the // so ant can be more readable by users already familiar with Xpath ? Janusz -- 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]>
