On Oct 8, 2008, at 1:56 PM, dd-b wrote:
>
> On Oct 8, 3:31 am, Peter Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>>> 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?
Some parts of Puppet are designed, some are accreted, and some are
somewhere in between, as with most software projects and languages.
Puppet's capitalization is influenced by Ruby's, but not nearly so
consistently as Ruby's is, unfortunately.
The basic theories you're encountering are:
- Instances use lower case, collections are capitalized.
- Treating the '[]' syntax as operating on the Foo::Bar collection of
instances. In other words, your retrieving an instance from a
collection.
One can certainly argue that these aren't *good* theories, or aren't
realized perfectly, but that's what I was thinking when I wrote it.
One of my goals for the coming year is to try to fix some of these
niggling inconsistencies in the language, but we'll see.
--
Silence is a text easy to misread.
-- A. A. Attanasio, 'The Eagle and the Sword'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
