Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The implementation does however involve a small Backward
Incompatible change to the implementation of MacroInstance.
I'd say we can live with that.
Cool, Should it also go into the infamous ant 1.6.2 ?
(Also, should DynamicConfiguratorNS go into 1.6.2 ?)
In a response to DD you say that you can't mix an implicit element
with explicit elements. Is this really required? Can't we have an
implicit catch-all element for the nested elements that don't match
any explicitly stated nested elements?
It is not strictly required, but it makes the code a good bit easier and cleaner.
Also I cannot see the need to mix implicit and explicit elements, the
build scripts that did that would be confusing.
One thing is that the explicit element ignores the namespace uri (for BC purposes with ant 1.6.1) so mixing implict elements with explicit elements could be even more confusing.
Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
