On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> The main limitation I see without local properties in <macrodef> is >> when your macro uses a property setting task like <basename> or >> <available> - you currently need to provide a unique property name >> to those tasks if you want to reuse the macro. > > Is this really the only reason, currently, for local properties?
Not the only, but a very important one. > Because if that is the case, maybe we can solve the problem in a > completely different way, which is specific to <macrodef/>. What you describe is pretty much what I (and probably anybody else) use as a workaround. I create what would be a local property by using a name contains the name of at least one of the task's attributes. I don't think I'd like to turn this into a formalized solution with the property namespace polution you get. Also, you can't guarantee unique property names since you don't know which normal Ant property names will be used later in the build - outside of <macrodef>s. All you could guarantee is that the name hasn't been used yet and won't clash with a name a <let> construct would create later. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
