On Friday 24 October 2003 12:25, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > Back to the original start. > > Peter, now that you are convincing yourself that <macrodef> attributes > shouldn't create <local>s - is there still a backwards incompatibility > to be expected once <local>s get introduced? Or have we reached a > point where <macrodef>'s behavior is independent of <local>?
No. Either attributes are seen as properties by the contained tasks or there is a textual substitution by the macrodefinition. There is a differnce in behaviour. Allowing the attributes be seen as normal properties by the contained tasks is most likely a good thing. > > If the later is the case, I'd suggest we rediscuss the local feature > for the 1.7 timeframe and do not put it into 1.6. Another solution would be to get <macrodef> to use the local property mechanism do the other parts of the implementation in 1.7 (or 1.6.1). So the <local/> task and the mods to target and unknownelement to support <local/> could be left to 1.7. Peter > > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
