On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:22 PM, Nigel Kersten wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Markus Roberts <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Hmm, the number of people chiming in on this topic is making me wonder
>>>> whether we are barking up the wrong tree with lexical scoping. If people
>>>> don't need for variables and resource defaults defined in a class to take
>>>> effect in contained classes, then there's no sense in our going to extra
>>>> work to support it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can we drop both lexical and dynamic scoping and still keep this property:
>>>
>>>>>> 1. Variables defined at toplevel can be seen inside classes. For
>>>>>> example:
>>>>>> $var = "value"
>>>>>> class foo { notify { $var: } }
>>>>>> include foo
>>>>>>
>>>> This is a good idea and should stay, short and long term.
>>
>> Q: Can we drop both lexical and dynamic scoping and still keep the property
>> "Variables defined at toplevel can be seen inside classes"?
>>
>> A: Yes. Globals don't require scoping. :P
>
> Do we need scoping for inherited classes to inherit resource defaults
> and variables?
Yes, but would it be acceptable to remove that and rely on the mixin-like
behaviour I mentioned earlier instead?
--
It's very hard to predict things . . . Especially the future.
-- Prof. Charles Kelemen, Swarthmore CS Dept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Kanies -|- http://puppetlabs.com -|- +1(615)594-8199
--
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.
