Heh, right. I was trying to think of a clean way to give types a way to say, > "autorequire the first of these dependencies that's found in the catalog, > and ignore the rest". Adding an autorequirefirst method would do it in a > backwards-compatible way, but that feels icky. >
Can you explain what feels icky about it? It seems like a legitimate (and not particularly open-ended) extension of the api. If there were risk that we'd be opening the door to later adding "autorequireallbutfirst" and "autorequirethird" and such could see objecting strongly (heck, I'd be objecting strongly myself) but in this case it seems like a semantically sound addition that isn't likely to get out of hand and could plausibly be useful elsewhere. -- M ----------------------------------------------------------- When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. -- 1920's parody of the maritime general prudential rule ------------------------------------------------------------ -- 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.
