|
| Re: New version of Buckminster Book available (rev 0.5) [message #388399 is a reply to message #388396] |
Wed, 29 July 2009 08:01   |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Henrik Lindberg schrieb:
> New Draft of Buckminster Book is available at http://tinyurl.com/ncv4lq
>
> This is version 0.5 of the book, and it is now getting near completion.
> I (think) have one or two more examples to write, and then final editing
> and polish.
>
> Your feedback is much appreciated.
>
> Regards
> - henrik
Hi Henrik,
thanks a lot for the new version of the book!
As for the feedback: maybe you should correct the advanced property
section after my issues in the 'dynamic property refs' discussion.
This one:
Here is another more advanced example:
<«element» format="/tmp/somewhere/${{0}}">
<«function» ...>
</«element»>
In this example an element that has a format where {0} is expanded to
the value of the first child
element, uses this value (i.e. {0}) as the name of a property that
should be expanded as the final value.
|
|
|
| Re: New version of Buckminster Book available (rev 0.5) [message #388495 is a reply to message #388399] |
Wed, 29 July 2009 13:00 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Fixed in 0.6.
Thanks.
Johannes Utzig wrote:
> Henrik Lindberg schrieb:
>> New Draft of Buckminster Book is available at http://tinyurl.com/ncv4lq
>>
>> This is version 0.5 of the book, and it is now getting near
>> completion. I (think) have one or two more examples to write, and then
>> final editing and polish.
>>
>> Your feedback is much appreciated.
>>
>> Regards
>> - henrik
>
> Hi Henrik,
>
> thanks a lot for the new version of the book!
> As for the feedback: maybe you should correct the advanced property
> section after my issues in the 'dynamic property refs' discussion.
>
> This one:
>
> Here is another more advanced example:
> <«element» format="/tmp/somewhere/${{0}}">
> <«function» ...>
> </«element»>
> In this example an element that has a format where {0} is expanded to
> the value of the first child
> element, uses this value (i.e. {0}) as the name of a property that
> should be expanded as the final value.
>
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New version of Buckminster Book available (rev 0.5) [message #476280 is a reply to message #468505] |
Wed, 05 August 2009 23:48 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
The text is now changed to read:
"As an example, if you want an attribute in component-C to include the
artifacts ‘g’, and ‘h’, you can declare the attribute’s base to be an
empty string (base=""), and use the paths ‘plugins/g’,
and ‘plugins/h’. You get the same result if you instead set the base
like this: base="plugins", and set the paths to just ‘g’ and ‘h’. Does
it matter which you use? The same files are referenced in both cases.
The answer is: yes, it matters when you are copying the result. Let’s
say you copy the result to a location ‘Z’. In the first case you would
get ‘Z/plugins/g’ and ‘Z/plugins/h’, and in the second case you would
get ‘Z/g’, and ‘Z/h’."
I hope that is clearer.
- henrik
Henrik Lindberg wrote:
> Hi, no, not a typo, but some commas would make it easier to read. I will
> rephrase it.
> - henrik
>
> Tas Frangoullides wrote:
>> First line on page 69 is hard to follow. Might be a typo.
>>
>> Tas
>>
>> "Henrik Lindberg" <henrik.lindberg@cloudsmith.com> wrote in message
>> news:h4o8q9$ria$1@build.eclipse.org...
>>> New Draft of Buckminster Book is available at http://tinyurl.com/ncv4lq
>>>
>>> This is version 0.5 of the book, and it is now getting near
>>> completion. I (think) have one or two more examples to write, and
>>> then final editing and polish.
>>>
>>> Your feedback is much appreciated.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> - henrik
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New version of Buckminster Book available (rev 0.5) [message #480863 is a reply to message #480858] |
Tue, 18 August 2009 17:27 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Please stop cross-posting this topic over both newsgroups.
Thanks,
Thomas Hallgren
On 08/18/2009 07:16 PM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
> Thanks,
> fixed in 0.6.
> - henrik
> Tas Frangoullides wrote:
>> Hi Henrik,
>>
>> Page 152, Section "Access to prerequisites and product location",
>> First sentence. There appears to be a small typo on the word 'though',
>> which I think should be 'thought'.
>>
>> Tas
>>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03944 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
