--- Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I would like to hear comments about having an
> "antlib" scope. I.e.,
> global but visible only to tasks defined in the same
> antlib. This
> will give you a concept similar to "module
> variables" in many
> programming languages.
That is a difficult question to answer; I am not yet
sure whether explicitly named properties scopes are
necessary, but antlib scopes strike me as only one use
of scoped definitions; i.e. wrap any set of
<[[task|type]def|antlib|import]>s in a scope and...
what? This smells like a can of worms I'm not sure we
want to open just yet... one can argue against the
need for antlib scope; if a property needs local scope
between two or more definitions in the same antlib,
then the proper approach should be the use of a
macrodef containing the propertyscope within its
<sequential> block.
>
> Jose Alberto
>
-Matt
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
