On Oct 12, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Nigel Kersten 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.
<aol> Yep me too </aol> Additionally I have zero inheritance; I just haven't
found it to be necessary.
>
> 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.
+1 - i think there's two separate things that get conflated together. one is
hierarchical namespace, where we group related classes together and use the
class::secondlevel notation to make navigating and managing a complex
modulepath easier. the second is inheritance, fraught with peril as it is, and
i agree that just declaring one class is inside an upper level class' namespace
should not imply anything about its behaviour.
>
> If we did that, then under Jesse's example that just arrived in my
> inbox File["foo"] would be owned by root, but File["bar"] would not.
- Eric Sorenson - N37 17.255 W121 55.738 - http://twitter.com/ahpook -
--
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.
