This looks excellent! It makes Ant a lot more flexible, but at the same time also more compilcated to use. Buildfiles with (possibly nested) <macrodef/>s and <include/>s could be a lot harder to understand and maintain. But if used correctly, probably easier!
A question: is <macrodef> a special task in the sense that it seems to be able to suppress Ant from resolving properties for it when the task is evaluated? Is there a mechanism which allows this to be done in custom tasks as well? -- knut "peter reilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Thursday 14 August 2003 10:31, Conor MacNeill wrote: > > Cool. > > > > I think these should go in Ant :-) > Excellent. > > > > As you know I had thought about <macrodef> but I'm happy to > > see you've done it. I think there is a slight property scoping issue > > for the nested params. I had thought about a different syntax for > > macro params (e.g. $[target]), perhaps hooked into a specific property > > helper used for the macro scope. > > Initially I used $(target) but changed back to using > ${target} as this is what people (including me) are used to. > The substitution is done by the task itself and does not > use the ant property infrastructure. The effect of this is to > have a macro textual scope for the parameters (which look like > properties). > > I had looked at having a task scope for properties, but this > looked difficult to achieve. > > Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
