On Oct 9, 2:03 am, Peter Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Foo::bar["default"] {
> >>> [...]
> >>> The only way I can get this syntax to work is to move the 'bar'
> >>> definition outside of the foo class and refer to it by a name without
> >>> '::' in it in foo2. Is there a way to override a definition with '::'
> >>> in its name?
> >> it's Foo::Bar["default"] {
>
> > Let me just mention that this use of capitalization is *so totally
> > bizarre*. And not really explained anywhere; what does it mean, why
> > is it there at all?
>
> capitalization is refering to an already defined object/resource (so to
> an "instance" of foo::bar) in an inheritance chain. for me it totally
> makes sense to divide between overwriting and actually defining resources.
As I do more stuff I will see if that explanation helps me understand
it.
In general, I find what's most missing from documentation these days
is the explanation of the philosophical underpinnings of a design --
to me, that's the "how do the developers think about this?" question,
and that's what I most need to have explained to me to start making
sense of something. And the documentation tends to start at the
bottom, with cookbook explanations of how to do a few things, and no
explanations of how things relate.
Very frequently, it makes *perfect* sense if I can just figure out
what position I need to get my mind into first!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
