Stefan Bodewig wrote: > 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.
It seems to me that if someone really needs this sort of thing, then the use of Ant-Contrib's Variable is pretty much sufficient, esp. if property parsing becomes recursive (e.g., per the patch I submitted already) so that you can access properties via a second-level indirection. Would one then still need locals? If absolutely necessary, a GenUniquePropertyName task could be coded. -- Jack J. Woehr # We have gone from the horse and buggy Senior Consultant # to the moon rocket in one lifetime, but Purematrix, Inc. # there has not been a corresponding moral www.purematrix.com # growth in mankind. - Dwight D. Eisenhower --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
