On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Ian Ward Comfort wrote:
> 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?
I don't think I understand your question; can you elaborate?
--
The chief lesson I have learned in a long life is that the only way to
make a man trustworthy is to trust him; and the surest way to make him
untrustworthy is to distrust him and show your distrust.
-- Henry L. Stimson
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
