Sorry about not knowing the whole story :)
But could that be possible/usefule?
<macrodef name="test>
<local prefix="tmp"/>
<sequential>
<property name="tmp.test" value="hello"/>
<echo>${tmp.test}</echo>
</sequential>
</macrodef>
<test/>
<echo>${tmp.test}</echo>
[test] hello <-- from macrodef
[echo] ${tmp.test} <-- outside macrodef, prop is unset
Jan
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet am: Freitag, 8. Oktober 2004 17:38
> An: Ant Developers List
> Betreff: Re: local properties
>
> Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
>
> >Peter,
> >
> >I just posted something on bug 23942 about a different approach
> >to this issue that I implemented on my machine at home.
> >
> >It is a very small addition to macro and it does not require
> >any changes to the ANT machinery. I think everything we want
> >to be able to do in macros can be done this way.
> >
> >
> Yes I have seen it.
> I do not like it, - the [EMAIL PROTECTED] syntax is a bit ikky ;-)
> However, it does solve the macrodef use case so if people
> go for it, I would have no objection.!
>
> Peter
>
> >The full implementation provides some additional features to
> >help you control the scope of <let/> on <antcall>s and such
> >but all is based on the current machinery. No changes to CORE at all.
> >
> >If you allow me to post it, or if you look at the example, you can
> >get a flavor for it.
> >
> >
> You should place this as an attachment to the local buzilla report
>
> Peter
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
