*sigh* ;-) ... well I guess I would prefer taking steps forward rather than just accept the way things are but that's just me.
Seriously though ... isn't the point of deprecating something supposed to be that you're marking it for future deletion, giving those affected by backwards-compatibility-type issues ample time to get with the program and at the same time allowing them to keep going on the way they have been while this whole thing is pending? Deprecating the old naming should be indication enough ... at least nobody will be able to say it was never documented ... and we're not changing anything about the way it works, just the naming (in contrast to some deprecated stuff in JDK which was replaced by whole new schemes of doing things, e.g. java.util.Date), which I think in and of itself is not a bad way to go. just my %.02 Rob "if I got 2 cents for every time somebody said 'just my $.02' I would be SO filthy rich" van Oostrum > -----Original Message----- > From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: September 25, 2003 8:22 PM > To: Ant Users List > Subject: Re: Manifest.mf > > > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:02 am, Rob van Oostrum wrote: > > I'm not saying you couldn't deprecate it ... > > > > Sure - but would that "avoid confusion" :-) > > Conor > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
