Issue #3571 has been updated by Luke Kanies. Status changed from Needs design decision to Accepted
I say we modify it to allow it to require any resource type, but consider a plain string to be syntactical sugar for a class, with no deprecation. Seem reasonable? Or should we force the resource reference? ---------------------------------------- Bug #3571: "require" function is named badly. http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/3571 Author: Nigel Kersten Status: Accepted Priority: Normal Assigned to: Brice Figureau Category: functions Target version: Affected version: 0.25.4 Keywords: Branch: The require function only works with classes. It should be called "require_class" in that case. This isn't at all transparent to read: <pre> class one { require("two") ... } </pre> I naively expected the syntax to look like: <pre> class one { require(Class["two"]) ... } </pre> and to be able to require any kind of object, but given this function can only require classes, I suggest this would be a big improvement. <pre> class one { require_class("two") ... } </pre> -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: http://projects.puppetlabs.com/my/account -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Bugs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-bugs?hl=en.
