> From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
>
> >I just posted something on bug 23942 about a different approach
> >to this issue that I implemented on my machine at home.
> >
> >It is a very small addition to macro and it does not require
> >any changes to the ANT machinery. I think everything we want
> >to be able to do in macros can be done this way.
> >
> >
> Yes I have seen it.
> I do not like it, - the [EMAIL PROTECTED] syntax is a bit ikky ;-)
> However, it does solve the macrodef use case so if people
> go for it, I would have no objection.!
I haven't looked at your impl Peter, but there are two things
about Jose Alberto's proposal I wanted to note:
1) The generated unique name would need to at least use the
'let' name's as a prefix, otherwise the verbose/debug output
of Ant will be difficult to use when troubleshooting.
2) All these uniquely named properties go on living after
the macro has executed. That pollutes the namespace.
I'd prefer a solution that (1) doesn't leak out any temporary
property once the macro is done executing, and (2) that uses
the simpler and macro-specific @{name} notation.
If Peter's patch does this, then I'd prefer his. Thanks, --DD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
