On Tuesday 11 November 2003 10:01, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One oddity is that the implementation of elements is now > > exposed. > > Yes, I see you've "fixed" the specific <for> case by now, but it
The reason I fixed this is that in this case the sequential is not polymorphic. It was originally (in MacroDef) meant to be an addSequential and not a addTask(). The problem was to get access to the UnknownElements to allow them to modified by macroinstance. Actully looking at it, I think that it should be implemetned by MacroDef#createSequential. > remains a little strange. But then again it doesn't, as the version > which uses addTask is open for polymorphism while the addSequential is > not - as far as Ant's intorspection rules are concerned. > > We'll have to explain which elements are open for polymorphism and > which are not in the future a lot. Yep, that is for sure. 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]
