Evan Easton wrote:
... Valid point.
But isn't the depends list of an imported target something that you'd really like to not muck with in the interests of encapsulation? I agree that it would be really nice to be able to insert into or at the end of the overridden target's dependencies (a la aspect oriented languages), but I think I could contrive cases where this unintentionally breaks the functionality of the overridden target.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be supported, but I think we are sill grappling with a basic OO-link inheritance problem that we need to address before diving into aspect oriented constructs which, while very powerful, seem to create lots of issues unless you really know what you're doing.
BTW,
While I don't think ant should become a polymorphic OO language, I do think that this override bug should be addressed by following conventions present in most OO languages. This is mostly because I'd like to not have to remember yet another oddball inheritance/override model and with a pure virtual, polymorphic model I'd know exactly what I'm doing. Of course, since I've been coding for 20 years, I'm not really sure that this make things easier on newbies. Plus there's the whole multiple inheritance debate to have all over again.
Evan
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
