Point taken. But that sounds like an argument against the augment
feature itself. If you are going to make exceptions, then things aren't
really immutable at all. When properties were made immutable there had
to be ugly little hacks like the prefix on tstamp to get around the fact
there were times you really wanted a bit of mutability on the value
(though not on the meaning).
If you are going to introduce the feature, I don't see what final gets
you. But I could be convinced otherwise.
On 26/03/2010 1:29 AM, Gilles Scokart wrote:
I agree with your argumentation about final in java. But I'm not sure you
can translate that to ant.
First, I have access to the overwrite method in 1 key in my java IDE. In
ant, it might be a little bit more complex.
Secondly, I continue to see ant as a declarative language (although inside
the target, the ant tasks follow an imperative style). And in a
declarative language, it is much more unusual to overwrite/modify the
declaration. Immutability has great value in declarative language.
Gilles Scokart
On 25 March 2010 23:58, Bruce Atherton<br...@callenish.com> wrote:
I agree. I see that the intent in such a final attribute is to keep a build
system understandable at a local level without worrying about what external
entities might do, but if you feel that way don't use augmentation in your
build system. The only reasons I use final keyword in programming are
security and performance, neither of which apply here. It is too hard to
predict where extensibility can prove useful to pre-empt it beforehand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
