On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Wolfgang Häfelinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Which one would you prefer? Or should we invent a new one?
>
> Use an existing one of course. There could also be more than one,
> just supported by a "language" attribute.
This is the approach the NAnt folks have chosen, you can do stuff like
${functionn-library::some-method()} and implement your NAnt extensions
in any language that compiles to MSIL. I can't say I find the typical
NAnt build file easier to read than Ant build files, but that may be a
matter of getting used to it.
I think you can do almost everything you'd like to do with a script
condition - without making the core of Ant more complicated.
>> We do have the "clumsy" XML expression language that we built into
>> the condition task and it follows the rest of Ant's "language".
>
> I do not see your point why an embedded expression language would
> not follow Ant's language terms. Perhaps you can elaborate on this
> bit further.
It would add a new one - or even multiple new ones.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
