On 10/12/2010 09:29 PM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
> ----- "Jesse A Wolfe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're late to the party, guys. Making this do something useful is
>> exactly what this thread is discussing.
>
> heh, sorry, this thread has been going for almost a month :P
>
> The most useful thing would be if we just removed this syntax is my vote.
>
> Relationships in code should be obvious when read and shouldnt require you to
> be a
> 'programmer' to reason it out. Our target audience arent 'programmers' and
> so we
> need to think about their general state of mind.
I hate complicating this even more, but please keep the following edge
case in mind:
It is currently legal to do
class A {
class disable inherits A {
...
}
}
and then "include A::disable".
If nesting and inheritance both have meaning, care must be taken that
a) the combination of both is well-defined and
b) people relying on the combination already are not in for a nasty surprise
As a note, my manifests nest inheriting classes by policy.
So A::subclass has a meaning, not through language features but mere
policy instead.
Cheers,
Felix
--
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.
