On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:12 PM, R.I.Pienaar <[email protected]> wrote: > > ----- "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 would be perfectly happy if we removed that syntax altogether, but that's because I don't use it :) > > >> 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. > > -- nigel -- 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.
