> From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> It appears that the attributes as local properties
> patch
>
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23942
>
> causes macrodef to behave in the way you expect.
>
> A cut-down version shows this.
>
> <project>
Let me add:
<property name="a" value="AAA" />
<property name="b" value="BBB" />
> <macrodef name="inner">
> <attribute name="a"/>
> <attribute name="b"/>
> <sequential>
> <echo> name="a" value="${a}"</echo>
> <echo> name="b" value="${b}"</echo>
> </sequential>
> </macrodef>
>
> <macrodef name="outer">
> <attribute name="work"/>
> <attribute name="play"/>
>
> <element name="precompile" optional="true"/>
> <element name="additional" optional="true"/>
>
> <sequential>
> <precompile/>
> <additional/>
> </sequential>
> </macrodef>
>
> <target name="test.outer">
> <outer work="this is work" play="this is play">
> <precompile>
> <inner a="${work}" b="${play}" />
> </precompile>
> </outer>
> </target>
> </project>
>
>
> Ant 1.6 currently outputs:
> test.outer:
> [echo] name="a" value="${work}"
> [echo] name="b" value="${play}"
>
> With the patch
> this gets output:
>
> test.outer:
> [echo] name="a" value="this is work"
> [echo] name="b" value="this is play"
>
> Peter
What's the output now, with the addition?
I assume currently property 'a' and 'b' are simply ignored and the output
you show above Peter doesn't change w/ or w/out the patch. This behavior has
a name, and it's *variable hiding* (properties here in fact), and it's not a
recommended behavior.
As a user of Ant pre-<macrodef>, I would expect the output to be (with my
addition):
test.outer:
[echo] name="a" value="AAA"
[echo] name="b" value="BBB"
And without it:
[echo] name="a" value="${a}"
[echo] name="b" value="${b}"
Of course, one would then need a new notation to de-reference the attributes
of the <macrodef>... Exactly what was rejected in the first place.
Adding this new notation for <macrodef> attributes disambiguates regular
property de-references, from the macro's attributes, once and for all.
As far as using the local patch, yes, it does make sense as you show above,
but it still doesn't solve the point I've been trying to make from the get
go, and that apparently everybody else simply dismisses. --dD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
