]; Martin Aliger
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Gert Driesen [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] PATCH: Expression evaluator for NAnt
One more think came to my mind:
Dash (-) is a legal character in property name today and this may cause
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] PATCH: Expression evaluator for NAnt
Aren't we making this too difficult for ourselves and for our users here,
by
not using the $ or ${} delimiters ?
Perhaps I'm alone on this, but I really have serious doubts
MacLean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jaroslaw Kowalski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Martin Aliger [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] PATCH: Expression evaluator for NAnt
I'd much prefer to see properties still distinguised by the $. Maybe
];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] PATCH: Expression evaluator for NAnt
You've convinced me. It works for backwards compatibility too as you can
think of the older type of property ${foo} as an expression containing a
single identifier and so
[EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] PATCH: Expression evaluator for NAnt
You've convinced me. It works for backwards compatibility too as you can
think of the older type of property ${foo} as an expression containing a
single
Gert Driesen wrote:
I actually still prefer using the ${foo} syntax as :
- its easier to distinguish properties (as Ian originally said)
I'm happy with either one of Jareks options 2 and 3:
2. if=${length($propertyname)=length($someotherpropertyname)}
3.
I actually still prefer using the ${foo} syntax as :
- its easier to distinguish properties (as Ian originally said)
- it won't break compatibility for properties with numeric names (eg
${123})
this is a little problem. I dont think it is good idea to have property with
such name but
apologies. I missed a previous email in the thread. I didn't realize the
choice was between lt and lt.
Ian
I also don't think we should use lt, gt, ... instead of ==, for
operators,
both XSLT and MSBuild use similar operators ... so I don't see why we
should
be different ...
not so. From
- it won't break compatibility for properties with numeric names (eg
${123})
Can you have properties with such names? What's the use for them? Maybe
they
should be disallowed or deprecated?
What about output warning when defining property with such name?
that is on property name=123
Is anyone actually using numeric property names ? I say we should
dissallow them and be done with it.
Ian
Martin Aliger wrote:
- it won't break compatibility for properties with numeric names (eg
${123})
Can you have properties with such names? What's the use for them? Maybe
they
- Original Message -
From: Ian MacLean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Gert Driesen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jaroslaw Kowalski [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin Aliger
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] PATCH: Expression evaluator
1. if=${propertyname} = '123'
or
2. if=propertyname = '123'
you need
if=${propertyname = '123'} right now.
btw: Not very convenient in if attributes. They could/should be automatic
that is without ${}.
But you could use ${} everywhere e.g.
echo message=hello ${propertyname='123'} world./
Sorry - I wrote that the wrong way around. Nant properties are/ have
been macro expansions, meaning that they are simple text substitutions
that occur before any semantic processing of the build file occurs -
similar to macros in C. Xslt's variables are true variables and have an
associated
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] PATCH: Expression evaluator for NAnt
Is anyone actually using numeric property names ? I say we should
dissallow them and be done with it.
Ian
Martin Aliger wrote:
- it won't break compatibility
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] PATCH: Expression evaluator for NAnt
1. if=${propertyname} = '123'
or
2. if=propertyname = '123'
you need
if=${propertyname = '123'} right now.
btw: Not very convenient in if attributes. They could/should be automatic
that is without ${}.
But you could use
: Jaroslaw Kowalski [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] PATCH: Expression evaluator for NAnt
1. if=${propertyname} = '123'
or
2. if=propertyname = '123'
you need
if=${propertyname = '123'} right now.
btw
]
To: Jaroslaw Kowalski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] PATCH: Expression evaluator for NAnt
Jaroslaw,
Awesome ! Checking it out now. Obviously this is another thing to go in
post 0.84 but this looks like a great start.
Thanks
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] PATCH: Expression evaluator for NAnt
Great! Superb! Maybe I'd love to see startwith and endwith string
functions
in addition, but great start as Ian said :)
Is it in already?
I tried: [with nant-20031128
.
Martin
- Original Message -
From: Jaroslaw Kowalski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Martin Aliger [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ian MacLean
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] PATCH: Expression evaluator for NAnt
It's not in yet, but I'm
]
To: Ian MacLean [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jaroslaw Kowalski
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] PATCH: Expression evaluator for NAnt
Great! Superb! Maybe I'd love to see startwith and endwith string
functions
- Original Message -
From: Martin Aliger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jaroslaw Kowalski [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ian MacLean
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] PATCH: Expression evaluator for NAnt
Sounds good!
embedded
But it may break some build scripts which use length and similar
keywords
as property names. What should we do then?
true :-( Looks we couldn't be 100% compatible... Unless expression
generator
allows to use length variable/property and length() function in the
same
time.
It's of course
I'd much prefer to see properties still distinguised by the $. Maybe the
parser can easily determine that its a property but its not so clear for
a user reading it. Especially since propertys everywhere else require
the $ syntax.
Ian
Jaroslaw Kowalski wrote:
It's of course possible to
Jaroslaw,
Awesome ! Checking it out now. Obviously this is another thing to go in
post 0.84 but this looks like a great start.
Thanks !
Ian
Hi!
As I've promised some time ago on the list, I've implemented a simple, yet
very powerful, expression evaluator for NAnt. See below for a full list of
24 matches
Mail list logo
