> From: Kev Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > <define name="foo" scope="local"/> > > <define name="bar" scope="global"/> > > adding a scope parameter wouldn't be much use now, but for > later on we > could roll properties and local properties together with this > strategy. > Maybe people want to stick with properties because it's very > well known > and expressive, but then with local properties there's a > semantic difference > > global properties = <property/> > local properties = <define/> >
As Peter and me have said before, <define/> just produces a guaranteed unique string value that can be used as a property name or something else. It does not know anything about where you would use the string. The string value is accessed like an attribute of <macrodef/> so you refer to it just like an attribute. You can control the sape of the string value using 'prefix' so that you can control whether generated properties or references should be passed through ant-calls or not. What you proposed may be applicable to <local-property/> which is a completely different mechanism being proposed. If we were to define scopes, then I would suggest considering also scope="antlib" which would make the property only visible to things defined in the same library as where the property was defined. That would allow defining proper modules with private properties only visible to the members of the module. Jose Alberto --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
