On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about structuring this local variables scope as follows: > > <propertyscope> > > <propertyscope> > <property name="1" scope="local" value="A"/> > <property name="2" scope="super" value="B"/> I don't see any use for the super scope myself, but if it helps to reach consensus ... > And it cover all the cases of prefix and such by only modifying a > couple of places. Mainly <property> and <propertyset> - any other tasks? Infrastructure would be the same as for the latest local properties proposal, right? > Now, I still will fight until convinced the implementation does not > break some BC assumption. :-P The best thing to do is to list all your concerns, write unit tests for them and commit them to Ant's tests before the local patch goes in ;-) > You still need a way to shadow a property without defining it True. > (maybe scope="shadowed"?). I'm afraid this would overload the scope attribute of your proposal. Which scope is the property going to end up in once it gets defined? shadowed-super? Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
