On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 15:24, Nigel Kersten <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Ian Ward Comfort <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On 1 Feb 2011, at 2:02 PM, Dan Bode wrote:
>> > I wanted to open the feature request
>> > http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/5824 for discussion.
[...]
>> > I would like to introduce the 'self' keyword to be used in this
>> > situation.
>>
>> I like this idea in theory. (I limit my statement only because we're
>> still in the process of migrating to 2.6.x here, and my ideas about
>> parameterized classes and how I'd like to use them are still purely
>> theoretical.) Since the longhand syntax is already permitted, providing
>> "Self" as shorthand doesn't seem too dangerous -- modulo keyword namespace
>> concerns, I guess.
>>
>> I'm curious to hear Nigel's misgivings, though, in case I'm missing
>> something.
>
> My misgivings are blurry, but center around complexifying what was meant to
> be a "simple DSL".
For what it is worth, I could see this being a way out of the morass
of referring to the attributes of the declaration rather than the
enclosing scope, making the language more useful:
define foo () {
notify { "$name is from my parent": }
notify { "$self::name is from me": }
}
foo { "bar": }
bar is from my parent
foo is from me
(...or perhaps backwards :)
Regards,
Daniel
--
⎋ Puppet Labs Developer – http://puppetlabs.com
✉ Daniel Pittman <[email protected]>
✆ Contact me via gtalk, email, or phone: +1 (877) 575-9775
♲ Made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons
--
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.
