DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22020>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22020 addition to <target..> task [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WORKSFORME | ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-08-04 20:36 ------- When was this targets beginning with - thing introduced? Has it been there all along? if so where is it documented I know I looked at one point for some form of public/private target distinction and missed it (which isn't a very good test at all, but there you have it) After testing it myself, I found that anything that begins with "-" is parsed as an option, but what happens when things change? for example what if support for "--" to prevent further option recognition is added? Sounds like a perfectly reasonable feature if you don't know that people are using -internal1 to keep targets hidden. Also, the public/privateness is hidden in the text of the target name, rather than out in an atribute of it's own where it can be easily changed or programatically considered (perhaps in resolving imports? can an imported ant file's "private" targets be called? What about overriding them?) Steve's workaround is cool, clever and provides exactly what I want in terms of hiding targets, but I am reopening because I think it also looks like a coincidental result of option processing quirk and a more robust system that doesn't push funtionality into the target names could be subsituted. This is afterall only an enhancement request. (maybe after I move I'll try to write this, if Verizon doesn't go on strike and deprive me of a phone line in my new appartment) Others are of course welcome to beat me to it :) I also noticed that this issue sort of came up in bug 3807 but the reporter seems to have ignored the response given. Perhaps 3807 should be marked a dup of this (since this one has more info on it already) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]