> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To me <let> is the correct solution that may need to get extended to > cover additional cases. Your task that generates unique names has > merits of its own and independent of that. Your (much simpler) > approach would need an additional cleanup mode to get rid of my > concerns and you are already willing to provide that.
I have two remarks to this long and somewhat controversial thread: 1) I don't like the <let> name. Perhaps it shows how ignorant I am about other languages not in the C family, but it doesn't speak to me, and the name to not convey the purpose. Thus I'm -1 to the <let> name. <scope> or <local> or else are not perfect, but at least convey more meaning to my ignorant self. 2) Regarding property cleanup, we already have a datatype and syntax to specify/select properties. It's called <propertyset>, and it does handle property selection by name/prefix/regexp. So I'd just change Peter's proposal have having a <localproperty> inside <macrodef> with a <localproperties> which would be a PropertySet. The property set can be evaluated before and after the macro execution to record before and restore/remove properties after. Finally, as Jack J. proposed, what is it exactly that prevents us from retrofitting a real property/reference stack in Project? Jose Alberto said he proposed it in the past, and it got nowhere, but now that we have Peter, maybe we should revisit ;-) My currently limited understanding of property/reference handling in Ant does not allow me to see any insurmountable issue. Can we in fact revisit this subject, since local properties pretty much would be solved with a real stack. Or am I just naïve, and a real stack is not possible to implement in a backward compatible manner? --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
