> To get concrete, what do you think of the following semantics:
>
> * $h1 in the first example above would be distinct from $h2 (assignment is
> a copy).
>
related, when you pass a hash as a parameter, is it a copy or a reference?
assignment should probably work the same way.
> * The value of a hash is the same at all points in all scopes in which the
> hash can be seen, and reflects all contributions.
>
Agree.
> * h += { k1 => v1, k2 => v2...} is syntactic sugar for h[k1]=v1; h[k2]=v2;
> ...
>
Agree, but how does the array version of += survive the transition to order
independence?
> * Any number of h[kx] =... assignments are allowed each scope, but only one
> per key globally
>
yep.
> * Hash keys are constrained in some way:
>
I'm reading this as a multiple choice question, is that what you intended?
> * they must be literal strings
>
not very useful
> * or they may not depend on values from a hash
>
might be fine for a first release
> * or they may not depend on values in the same hash
nor on values that depend on values from the same hash?
~Jesse
--
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.
