----- "Nigel Kersten" <[email protected]> wrote: > ugh. I never do the: > > class A { > class B { } > } > > construct as I've never been clear on the implications and just keep > all classes in their own files.
it's horrible for sure and doesnt sit well with the autoloader driven world view we seem to have today, I'd argue we should remove this syntax all together it implies relationships that doesnt exist. you'd kind of want to think that variables in A should be available in B by looking at the code but that's just not the case and writing out these classes long hand makes that a whole lot less surprising. the only redeeming approach would be if this syntax implied inheritance but that would still break the autoloader badly. > I almost feel like that B just being defined inside A shouldn't mean > variables and resource defaults in A apply to B... and that an > inheritance relationship should be required, but I'm unsure. -- 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.
