Steve Loughran wrote:
I am similarly concerned and so I would like it considered before back compatablity constrains us with import etc. Personally, the private public distinction I have made (as I have implemented it) could be called non-user and user as easily as it only effects the ability to access things from the command line. I tried to write it in a way that other access tags could be used, to create a broader continum, though I havn't gone so far to set it up to handle independant flags. (such that user/non-user could be independant from import/no-import)Gus Heck wrote:
I don't think there's such a thing as experimental stuff. It's either in or
not, and once in, it must be backward compatible.
I'm sorry so few people chimed in on the subject of overloading the meaning
of ${name} in Ant. If this could be changed, then I'd have an enthusiastic
+1, but as it stands, I'm -1 or maybe -0.
--DD
I agree 100%.
I also would like some feedback on my target access modifier patch, if possble
(see http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22020)
I have mentioned this to a couple of people, including the friend who introduced me to ant in the first place and all thought the idea was good. I would like it to get in 1.6 if possible.
I am worried about the interaction between public/private and the inclusion mechanism. Will people expect object style access modifiers to work with inclusion, such that targets marked private can not be called by included content?
My patch is just a suggestion, and I am looking for feedback on how it could be improved, or made to play nicely with things like import.
Gus
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
