Here is a new subject. What are the advantages of leaving macrodef with attributes implemented as textual substitutions ?
My impression is that the <local> properties are more powerful. Otherwise, of course, if we leave macrodef as it is with just a new notation for the attributes, then we can release 1.6 sooner. If we choose a notation $() for macro attributes (for instance), can we implement macrodef with <local/> in 1.7 ? or will we have a problem of backward compatibility in any case ? Cheers, Antoine -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Freitag, 31. Oktober 2003 17:13 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: <local> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 31 October 2003 15:55, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > No, it matters if the attributes in macrodef are implemented as >> > properties or if they are implemented as textual subsitutions. >> >> OK, but then this becomes the question to decide and not whether we >> need <local> in 1.6, right? > Yes Do we need a different thread to get a wider audience? >> If they are properties, we don't need an alternative. What are the >> difficulties you expect when they are not properties? > > Only the choice of the notation. MSBuild uses $() for its properties and @() for something else - probably Item references at first glance. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
