On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Even if it isn't the right verb, a simple <copy> on your source >> fileset would already do if it knew how to append - as would >> <concat> with a nested <redirector>. I'd probably prefer the >> <concat> approach since an appending copy sounds strange. > > OT: I was thinking about the <concat> thing and it occurred to me > that it might be counterintuitive to the very meaning of the word > "concatenate" to be able to send the contents of multiple files to > different destinations. Maybe a generic > > <redirect> > <fileset /> > <redirector /> > </redirect> > > would make more sense? <copy> already is that generic task, maybe it only needs a different (or additional) name. You can already use <copy> as a filtering pipe or to change the encoding of files on the fly. > if you one day dropped your proverbial hammer and it landed on a > screw and twisted it in perfectly... you've just discovered that > this hammer performs a screwdriver's job admirably. That could be because your hammer is that heavy. Or because your motoric skills are so bad (talking about myself here ;-) that using a hammer will be faster than fumbling with a screw-driver. Seriously. I know that Ant's task make up a great toolchest that make it a prefect fit outside of its original problem domain in many cases. And it often is this usage of Ant that requires scripting, I have no problem whit doing that at all. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
