On Friday, June 29, 2012 9:56:04 AM UTC-5, David Schmitt wrote: > > Indeed! Even more so as using the word "declare" for "include" is a load > of utter bollocks. "Declare" in the common programming language sense > means "indicating the existence of a thing that is defined elsewhere." > Like "declaring an external variable" or "(pre-)declaring a method", and > never indicates actions taken. > You have a point there, but perhaps not the one you think you do. Puppet's DSL is not a programming language, so applying linguistic conventions associated with programming languages is not entirely fair. Inasmuch as the DSL is a declarative language, in fact, more or less *everything* is a declaration, or part of one. Thus the problem with the term "class declaration" is not that it's inaccurate (it's a declarative statement that the target node has / belongs to the named class), but rather that it's too generic when everything else is a declaration too.
I used to prefer the term "include", but that doesn't fit well because it also has to cover the "require" function and the parametrized-class syntax. I eventually gave in to what seems to be the prevailing terminology, at least on this group. If you have an alternative that is better suited then I'm all ears. Maybe we can start a trend with it :-) John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/eB8zQUWKZvsJ. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
