"Adam Jacob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 1:59 AM, Daniel Pittman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, as expected this had the side-effect of making it impossible to
> detect when an undefined variable was used in a template. This was
> quite a loss, in my opinion, and something I would rather not give up.
>
> So, I spent some more time investigating this and came up with the patch
> just sent to the list: it manually hides the Kernel methods, which are
> the only ones (as far as I can determine) that cause us this grief.
>
> Ew.
>
> I would rather use the current template-wrapper than mask ruby's
> Kernel methods.
OK. I don't quite understand the basis of your objection here; it would
help me if you could explain why you object.
As far as I can see there is no sensible definition of, for example,
"puts", "fork" or "raise" during the template expansion process.
Is your objection that you can see a meaningful use of those functions,
or simply that you don't like the (relatively) ugly steps required to
provide a clean evaluation environment in Ruby?
Regards,
Daniel
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
