On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Christian Vest Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not so sure about that. The idea was, at least partly, to be rid > of the `set` operation because it shadows the data-type of the same > name. I just didn't go through and remove-slash-fold-them-into-config > because there were so many other changes to look at. True, I keep forgetting that was one of the goals here. I'm all for renaming set(); I just feel that "config" is not the right word for something that will hold, well, non-configuration values... > Also, I actually don't see what the advantage would be to having these > two namespaces. ...and that's why I brought up the two-namespaces idea. My main problem is that configuration data is not the same thing as user data, and saying "config(foo=bar)" when you're not setting actual config data, feels wrong. > I don't like splitting this into two seperate namespaces for two > reasons: 1) people risk setting `fab_` variables in their own > namespace and 2) we'd have to decide on a name resolution order, might > be different from what people expect and/or make it harder for them to > reason about the code. Both good points. I'm fine with a single flat namespace, but I'd prefer to rename Configuration/config to something more neutral, perhaps going back to "environment" (or a derivative thereof), or "vars", or something along those lines. -Jeff _______________________________________________ Fab-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fab-user
