Conor MacNeill wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2003 11:27 pm, Erik Hatcher wrote:Im ok with this, but do worry about the general trend which I have recently contributed to (if and unless on <define> in <csc> and siblings, though this is, as with <cc> a mapping of conditional java properties to #define values. I also worry about failonerror ... having a single try/catch mechanism would seem a better approach there.
If folks feel strongly about it, I'll revert it.
I'm not into strong feelings :-). Let's see what people think.
Conor
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the subject of if/unless, what if we modified the tests to not just take the name of a property, but take any of the values of true either in the string itself
<property name="foo" value="true"> <property name="nofoo" value="false">
today if="foo" and if="nofoo" would both eval to true.
but if we looked at the string for true/on/yes then
if="${foo}" => true
if="${nofoo}" =>falseI dont know what this would break (except for people who have properties called "true" ), but I can imagine that it would reduce the inordinate amount of confusion that if/unless cause people, including me on occasions. You those occasions, the one where a conditional string is evaluating wrongly and it looks write, but it turns out you were ${expanding} the property rather than just naming it.
-steve
