Question: If a node declaration masks a top-scope variable, is there ever a good reason to refer to the old value?
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Andrew Parker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 17, 2012, at 2:03 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > > > I like the general idea for sure, but I think it still leaves way too > much > > magic and layering and things that kind of needs to be studied to be > understoof > > rather than just be obvious. > > > > So I'd like to just mention that a few of us thinks rather than fix the > > mistakes of the past by incremental tweaking we should be rethinking it > > completely: > > > > http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/11915 > > I'm not sure that this is a direct overlap with that issue. The problem > there is essentially how to stop polluting a global namespace and make > origin of data a bit clearer so that a small snippet should be enough to > inform the reader. > > What I am trying to address is issue of what it means for a node to shadow > a top-scope variable. Another possible solution is that we just remove node > from the language. Then the entire issue goes away, but everything is still > possible and probably a lot clearer. > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
