You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ant.apache.org by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> on 2010/03/02 06:25:29 UTC
Re: Q: Is this intended with multiple with same scope ?
On 2010-02-26, Simone Cato <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is this the intended effect of multiple <local>s within the same scope?
Probably not a conscious choice.
> <property name="who" value="fred"/>
> <sequential>
> <!-- 'who' is 'fred' here...[OK]-->
> <local name="who"/>
> <!-- 'who' is undefined here...[OK]-->
> <property name="who" value="barney"/>
> <!-- 'who' is 'barney' here...[OK]-->
> <local name="who"/>
> <!-- 'who' is undefined here?...[EH?]--> <!-- [?] -->
You've just created a new local binding for the name "who", destroying
the old local binding.
> <property name="who" value="mrstone"/>
> <!-- 'who' is 'mrstone' here?...[EH?]--> <!-- [?] -->
That's fine, isn't it?
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: Q: Is this intended with multiple with same scope ?
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2010-03-04, Wascally Wabbit <wa...@earthling.net> wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2010-02-26, Simone Cato <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is this the intended effect of multiple <local>s within the same scope?
>> Probably not a conscious choice.
<snip/>
> Well I was a bit surprised actually as that's not
> mentioned in the <local> description. I thought <local>
> let me re[un]define a property within a local scope
> ONCE. In actuality it fundamentally changes what
> <property/> means even within a single scope. <property>
> no longer creates a write-once, read-many item within
> a single scope.
Like I said, I don't know whether this was intended when local
properties were introduced - and it isn't documented either way. OTOH
we'd have a hard time changing it now after the release of 1.8.0 even if
we now realized it to be wrong.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: Q: Is this intended with multiple with same scope ?
Posted by Wascally Wabbit <wa...@earthling.net>.
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2010-02-26, Simone Cato <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is this the intended effect of multiple <local>s within the same scope?
>
> Probably not a conscious choice.
>
>> <property name="who" value="fred"/>
>> <sequential>
>> <!-- 'who' is 'fred' here...[OK]-->
>
>> <local name="who"/>
>> <!-- 'who' is undefined here...[OK]-->
>
>> <property name="who" value="barney"/>
>> <!-- 'who' is 'barney' here...[OK]-->
>
>> <local name="who"/>
>> <!-- 'who' is undefined here?...[EH?]--> <!-- [?] -->
>
> You've just created a new local binding for the name "who", destroying
> the old local binding.
>
>> <property name="who" value="mrstone"/>
>> <!-- 'who' is 'mrstone' here?...[EH?]--> <!-- [?] -->
>
> That's fine, isn't it?
>
> Stefan
>
Well I was a bit surprised actually as that's not
mentioned in the <local> description. I thought <local>
let me re[un]define a property within a local scope
ONCE. In actuality it fundamentally changes what
<property/> means even within a single scope. <property>
no longer creates a write-once, read-many item within
a single scope.
Thanks,
The Wabbit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org