Gert Driesen wrote:
Also, should we continue to throw a buildexception when a read-only property
is overwritten using another mechanism (eg. another task) ? I'd say yes,
but let me know what you think.
Sure -- its only the default mechanism thats causing the confusion.
Ian
#x27;
Subject: RE: [Nant-users] Readonly properties, overwrite attribute
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Ian MacLean
> Sent: woensdag 20 oktober 2004 18:32
> To: Thibaut Barrère
> Cc: Nant-Users (E-mail)
> Su
>From: "Gert Driesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 1:38 PM
>Should we also deprecate the "overwrite" attribute on the task
>(and remove it after the 0.85 release), as a "property::exists(...)" unless
>condition could be used instead ?
Yes, particularly because of all th
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Gert Driesen
> Sent: woensdag 20 oktober 2004 19:38
> To: 'Ian MacLean'; 'Thibaut Barrère'
> Cc: 'Nant-Users (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Ian MacLean
> Sent: woensdag 20 oktober 2004 18:32
> To: Thibaut Barrère
> Cc: Nant-Users (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [Nant-users] Readonly properties, overwrite attribute
>
Didn't we agree to not throw this error anymore - and just warn as was
the previous behaviour ? I guess the change hasn't gone in yet. If I get
some time tomorrow I'll do it.
Ian
Thibaut Barrère wrote:
Hi,
I've been struggling around a while after updating a 5 month old nant
to the latest versio
