Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2005, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, alternatively you could overide "setup":
Sure, we can certainly play fetch-me-a-rock here. I just need to come up with a more complex scenario and there will be no solution for it in which I didn't have to duplicate (partial) depends lists or introduce empty targets.
Stefan
Valid point.
But isn't the depends list of an imported target something that you'd really like to not muck with in the interests of encapsulation? I agree that it would be really nice to be able to insert into or at the end of the overridden target's dependencies (a la aspect oriented languages), but I think I could contrive cases where this unintentionally breaks the functionality of the overridden target.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be supported, but I think we are sill grappling with a basic OO-link inheritance problem that we need to address before diving into aspect oriented constructs which, while very powerful, seem to create lots of issues unless you really know what you're doing.
Evan
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
