On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Felix Frank <
[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
Good point. Several people have brought this up both on and off list as an
example of a pattern that is common among puppet users and needs to continue
to work. Given the current consensus we seem to have reached (remove
dynamic scoping, possibly add an "extend" feature, and don't change the
meaning of nesting or inheritance), I have no worries. This pattern should
continue to work just fine.
--
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.
