If I followed correctly, it's not <subant> that alters scope, it's
<antcall> that opens a new scope. And since it does not inherit
references by default, the reference <subant> passed in correctly is
lost thru the use of <antcall>.
Actually I think it may be some subtle interaction between these.
- if I have a global reference in my top-level script, <subant> will pass it down to a lower script but then <antcall> will only pass it to a target if I include an explicit "inheritrefs" on the antcall.
- if I declare a duplicate of the global reference in my lower-script (removing the "inheritref" from my <subant>), I don't then need an explicit inheritrefs in my <antcall> tasks.
So there's a subtle (and possibly inconsistent) behaviour of <antcall> here - global references within the local script don't need to be passed down to called targets with "inheritrefs" - but any global-scope references passed in from a calling top-level script will only be passed to a called target if there is an explict "inheritrefs" on the <antcall>.
So what it seems is that the references are being passed down, but not their "global scope" nature and hence - as you note - when the <antcall> opens the new scope, the "passed down global references" aren't available to the <antcall> targets.
Are you sure you need <antcall>? Can't you refactor your 'function'Possibly as a future we could, we'll certainly look into it. That won't necessarily prevent others from tripping over this one though ;)
targets that you <antcall> into <macro>s? It's usually better/faster
with macros.
-- Rob
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
