On 3 Feb 2011, at 9:59 AM, Luke Kanies wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 1:40 AM, Thomas Bellman wrote:
>> On 2011-02-02 16:02, Luke Kanies wrote:
>>> On Feb 2, 2011, at 12:05 AM, Dan Bode wrote:
>>>> class foo requires Yay[boo], Yah[blah] inherits bar {...}
>>>
>>> It could certainly get messy, but I don't think this is that bad, especially
>>> if we stick to just requiring classes:
>>>
>>> class foo requires [boo, blah] inherits bar {...}
>>
>> What about the already existing syntax:
>>
>> class foo inherits bar {
>> require boo, blah
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> Is the require() function that unloved?
>
> The problem with it is that it's compile time, not parse time - meaning that
> you couldn't do static class dependency analysis without compiling all of the
> classes, and even then you wouldn't know if a given class always has that
> list of dependencies, or only for that one host.
>
> That make sense?
The require function also includes the named classes without parameters,
correct?
--
Ian Ward Comfort <[email protected]>
Systems Team Lead, Academic Computing Services, Stanford University
--
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.
