Let me get to your comments first :-)
> From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 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.!
>
The syntax is no different of one having a regular attribute which
passes a name of a property. So I see no reason to add a special
syntax for it. Not that it is imposible, but I do not see the need.
We could add some syntax sugar like [EMAIL PROTECTED] - @${var} or something
else
but I really do not see the need as the notation just needs 1 min
of explaining in the <macrodef/> page.
> 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
>
I will once I get home and after dinner tonight :-)
Jose Alberto
> Peter
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
