Sorry to say I wasn't involved in the discussion at that time. What were the arguments against using an alternative notation?
-----Original Message----- From: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 9:33 AM To: 'Ant Developers List' Subject: RE: Tale from the front: macrodef nesting > From: Steve Cohen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You're correct about working around this problem. However, I think > it's still a problem that the same ${identifier} notation can either > indicate a macrodef attribute or an ant property with completely > different times of resolution. > > In other words, the line of warning in the ant manual -- > > "This attribute is placed in the body of the templated task using the > ant property notation - ${attribute name}. Note that is not an actual > ant property" > > --will certainly confuse users and may therefore indicate a problem in > design. I argued long and hard on Ant-dev against this overloading of the meaning of ${name}, to no avail. Glad to see I'm not alone in this thinking. But then again, <macrodef>'s subtleties might just be showing the limits of my own abilities to grasp context-dependent behavior, when sharper people apparently have no such limitations. --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
