> 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.
>
I'd agree; my main problem with all of this is that I can't convince myself
that it "ought" to mean anything and find myself drifting into ill-founded
analogies with languages in which "class" has an entirely different
meaning.
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.
>
Yeah.
> 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.
>
That at least makes sense on a consistency basis.
-- M
-----------------------------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is
commonly called cynicism by those
who have not got it. ~George Bernard Shaw
------------------------------------------------------------
--
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.
