On 2013-17-09 5:44, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
On 2013-16-09 19:28, Andy Parker wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Henrik Lindberg
So we just talked about this on IRC. I think the outcome was:
* We agree that undef is really messed up right now
* Variable references should be strict
* A few of the other changes mentioned here might be good
* We differ on the correctness of class/resource parameters being
given undef resulting in the default value
I think that the correct behavior for undef being passed is to result in
the default value. From what I've seen and heard about how it gets used,
this is actually the more desirable behavior for the use cases that are
commonly encountered.
I think that is a reasonable starting point, and it is so much better
than the current handling of undef.
Will use this when experimenting with future evaluator. Will see what we
learn from that.
... and then I realized why I do not want an assignment of undef to mean
"no assignment"/"set default".
If/when resource attributes are typed it is then not possible to set
them to 'no value' unless that is their default value. When everything
is String, an empty string serves as "no value", but for numbers there
is no equivalence.
- henrik
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet
Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
