My 2 cents:
I think it makes the structure more clear. Personally I do not like the (in
my opinion) bogus targets only for evaluating if a target should be executed
or not. I can see the principle design argument, but it feels like they
bloat my ant scripts and make them less easy to understand. My
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Jeffrey E Care wrote:
> Off and on we've discussed more robust ways of determining target
> enablement, such as adding some type of EL syntax to if/unless.
>
> It dawned on me yesterday that we might already have the makings of a very
> robust system: why not use c
Off and on we've discussed more robust ways of determining target
enablement, such as adding some type of EL syntax to if/unless.
It dawned on me yesterday that we might already have the makings of a very
robust system: why not use conditions nested in targets to determine if
the target is enab
This is in the ant manual.
http://ant.apache.org/manual/CoreTypes/antlib.html#currentnamespace
There is a special xml namespace (ant:current) for typedefs defined
within an antlib.
The namespace is only active during the processing of the antlib.
Peter
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Gilles
