> I still don't remember doing that, but it's in the
> log... oh well!
So much done? :-)
Most important is THAT it´s there. Minor important is WHO has done it.
Jan
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sorry, it wasn´t me :-)
> As the changelog [1] shows I added only the last
> example (use of @attributes
> inside
> (1.14). The comes from Matt
> (1.16).
I still don't remember doing that, but it's in the
log... oh well!
-Matt
_
> >>Ps.
> >>Thanks for updating the doc for macrodef, esp the
> >>text element!.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Actually, that was all Jan's work. I just noticed a
> >missing "e" on the word "attribut" and thought I'd fix
> >it...
> >
> >
> >
> Ok,
> Then thanks Jan!
>
> Peter
Sorry, it wasn´t me :-)
As
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But on reflection, it may be better to use the element
in this case, inside an implicit aka
So we seem to agree.
Agreed!
Peter
Stefan
Matt Benson wrote:
--- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ps.
Thanks for updating the doc for macrodef, esp the
text element!.
Actually, that was all Jan's work. I just noticed a
missing "e" on the word "attribut" and thought I'd fix
it...
Ok,
Then thanks Jan!
Peter
---
Peter Reilly wrote:
This could be done by adding an add(Mapper) method to the Copy class.
This should be add(FileNameMapper) .
Peter
I am not too sure that this is a goal as this in effect makes Copy a
container
class for mappers, this should be I think done by the Mapper class
itself.
Peter
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But on reflection, it may be better to use the element
> in this case, inside an implicit aka
So we seem to agree.
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTEC
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would you (or anyone else) like to review what's in
> HEAD before I merge it to the 1.6 branch?
I don't expect to discover any un-mergeeable problems ;-)
I'll by sitting in a train for at least eight hours tomorrow, my
notebook is goi
--- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ps.
> Thanks for updating the doc for macrodef, esp the
> text element!.
Actually, that was all Jan's work. I just noticed a
missing "e" on the word "attribut" and thought I'd fix
it...
-Matt
__
--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you for bringing this up again, I have not
> forgotten about it
> (nor about reviewing the redirector stuff).
Would you (or anyone else) like to review what's in
HEAD before I merge it to the 1.6 branch?
-Matt
_
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only thing to keep in mind is that the following (I think)
should still work.
as against:
...
Why is this desirable? Less wordy or for a different re
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only thing to keep in mind is that the following (I think)
> should still work.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> as against:
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
Why is this desirable? Less wordy or
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to go ahead and merge it to the 1.6 branch...
+1
before that happens we should hopefully resolve any
conflict regarding the name of it... I personally am
glad enough to have it under any name... so
Hi Matt,
The names used for the typedefs "globmapper" etc
are ok to be used in a global context - i.e. it is obvious
that they are mapper types, so they do not need to
restrict the name to a FileMapper context.
So my feeling (now) is that should be in ant 1.6.2.
As regards the name, I used "contain
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to go ahead and merge it to the 1.6 branch...
+1
> before that happens we should hopefully resolve any
> conflict regarding the name of it... I personally am
> glad enough to have it under any name... so any
> conflict is (so
To rehash yet again, Peter, do I understand you
correctly to NOT have a problem with this going into
1.6.2, with the understanding that as the dynamic
stuff evolves, the advised usage pattern on mappers
can/will change? Or was there a reason you wanted to
keep any hint of this out of a 1.6.x versi
16 matches
Mail list logo
