Forum: CFEngine Help Subject: Re: Detriment to being explicit about "any::" ? Author: jblaine Link to topic: https://cfengine.com/forum/read.php?3,23421,23506#msg-23506
sauer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, should classes still apply to a block until > another class is specified, or should every single > promise be prefixed with a class expression? What > about compound bodies - should every parameter > inside also be prefixed with any::? Similarly, > one could argue that users should be required to > explicitly define a unique handle and comment on > each and every promise, as well as listing > dependencies for all promises, Oh, and K&R-style > brackets waste precious vertical space; only > CCR-style indentation should be allowed, with > 2-space tab stops. The => characters must all be > vertically aligned. No lines with more than 80 > chars allowed. And one list element per line in > slist definitions. Those are silly trivialities in comparison to bringing your entire infrastructure to its knees by missing a class definition, which is something that could very easily go right through unnoticed in testing in a testbed with a complex environment. At any rate, it was an opinion. I'm not about to have a religious war over an odd arbitrary CFEngine lack of protection in the language in the midst of all sorts of other controls in place to protect authors from doing something really bad by accident. A "require_explicit_all => "true/false"" in body common control would be much more in line with the rest of CFEngine. Hell, there's such a thing for *comments*, the lack of which is completely harmless. _______________________________________________ Help-cfengine mailing list Help-cfengine@cfengine.org https://cfengine.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine
