Wolfgang Häfelinger wrote:
Which one would you prefer? Or should we invent a new one?
Use an existing one of course. There could also be more than one,
just supported by a "language" attribute.
We do have the "clumsy" XML expression language that we built into the
condition task and it follows the rest of Ant's "language".
I do not see your point why an embedded expression language would
not follow Ant's language terms. Perhaps you can elaborate on this
bit further.
And regardless which existing language we'd chose, we'd always find
users who'd find it hard to use - not all Ant users are Java
developers and are able to read "a && b".
Users who do not understand feature are not obligied to use them and
I still believe that users quickly get the idea what "a && b" could
mean. After all, you also need a lot of imagniation to understand
what you can do with Ant, right?
The only problem with "&" is that it is an "XML" character as
well.
so clearly then, java booleans are not the obvious choice.
-What is the existing one you'd recommend? XPath 1.0? Perl?
Pascal-style, Ruby-Style?
-what functions to test for. defined/undefied, true/false, equality?
-How would I be able to declare and add new functions or operators into
the language?
-What are we going to use as a parser; the recursive descent thingy
built in to java, or use ANTLR to generate our own from the BNF notation.
-How are we going to test the language?
-How do we roll it out to other conditional types such as fail?
I can see a conditional target as a more likely option.
<ctarget>
<condition>
</condition>
<sequence>
</sequence>
</ctarget>
-steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
