Re: My itches with (was Re: [VOTE] local for 1.6)

2003-11-19 Thread peter reilly
On Wednesday 19 November 2003 09:46, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 18 November 2003 15:32, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > >> Your proposal uses a task that sets up a local scope for a > >> named property until the enclosing target/sequ

Re: My itches with (was Re: [VOTE] local for 1.6)

2003-11-19 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> On Tuesday 18 November 2003 15:32, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > > Just for the record, my syntax was more like: > > > ... > OK, I didn't actua

Re: My itches with (was Re: [VOTE] local for 1.6)

2003-11-19 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 18 November 2003 15:32, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> Your proposal uses a task that sets up a local scope for a >> named property until the enclosing target/sequential finishes. >> Jose Alberto suggested to use a TaskContainer

Re: My itches with (was Re: [VOTE] local for 1.6)

2003-11-19 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 18 November 2003 15:53, peter reilly wrote: > >> me) more natural. However, I can see benefits ;- my code may not > Opps that should of course be "the" code and not "my" code. Don't worry 8-) Stefan --

Re: My itches with (was Re: [VOTE] local for 1.6)

2003-11-18 Thread peter reilly
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 18:14, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > > From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Tuesday 18 November 2003 17:05, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > > > My major issue with the current implementation proposal is that it > > > touches way too many places in th

RE: My itches with (was Re: [VOTE] local for 1.6)

2003-11-18 Thread Jose Alberto Fernandez
> From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Tuesday 18 November 2003 17:05, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > > > > My major issue with the current implementation proposal is that it > > touches way too many places in the code. It needs to change the > > implemention of almost all the u

Re: My itches with (was Re: [VOTE] local for 1.6)

2003-11-18 Thread peter reilly
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 17:05, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > > From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Tuesday 18 November 2003 15:32, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > > Things we need to consider IMHO: > > > > > > (1) Syntax > > > > > > Your proposal uses a task that sets up a loca

RE: My itches with (was Re: [VOTE] local for 1.6)

2003-11-18 Thread Jose Alberto Fernandez
> From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Tuesday 18 November 2003 15:32, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > > > Things we need to consider IMHO: > > > > (1) Syntax > > > > Your proposal uses a task that sets up a local scope for a > > named property until the enclosing target/sequential >

Re: My itches with (was Re: [VOTE] local for 1.6)

2003-11-18 Thread peter reilly
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 15:53, peter reilly wrote: > me) more natural. However, I can see benefits ;- my code may not Opps that should of course be "the" code and not "my" code. Peter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECT

Re: My itches with (was Re: [VOTE] local for 1.6)

2003-11-18 Thread peter reilly
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 15:32, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 18 Nov 2003, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Vote: > >> [X] local for ant 1.6 > >> [ ] wait for ant 1.7 > > > > and done right ;-) Ouch ;-) > > Things we n