+/- 0 Jesse --
I'm not trilled by this. I can see how it fixes the observed problem, but at a cost of near duplication of a block of not to pretty code. "Double down on the ugly" isn't a good long term strategy. The real problem (correct me if I"m wrong) is that the absent field substitution mechanism, which is field insensitive (it always plops in the same value, regardless of the field) is being used to do more than ought be asked of it. Or rather, that it's underpowered by design, for rarely will you find a data structure where all the optional fields have the same default. Let's talk about this this more in person, and see if we can find a fix that cleans things up, as we're going to be extending/porting tests to validate it anyway. -- Markus
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" 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-dev?hl=en.
