On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 22 October 2003 15:04, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> What is the benefit of making <property> adhere to the scoping set >> up by <local>? > > The point is that all tasks including <property> see the local > properties as normal properties. So it is supposed to behave like all other property setting tasks, I understand. Currently I tend to agree with Jose Alberto that using a <local> container would be more intuitive. Your approach gets very confusing if you add dynamic extent to it, i.e. if you make <*ant*> inherit local values (as you say yourself). So I agree with you that <local> - if implemented the way you have implemented it - should be lexically scoped much like a local variable in a method. I wouldn't want to hunt several levels of build files to find whether one <local> has been shadowing my global value. I haven't checked, but does you current implementation allow <local> to shadow use properties? IMHO it shouldn't. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
