On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Ian Ward Comfort <icomf...@stanford.edu>wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2011, at 12:04 PM, Markus Roberts wrote: > >> Heh, right. I was trying to think of a clean way to give types a way to > say, "autorequire the first of these dependencies that's found in the > catalog, and ignore the rest". Adding an autorequirefirst method would do it > in a backwards-compatible way, but that feels icky. > > > > Can you explain what feels icky about it? It seems like a legitimate > (and not particularly open-ended) extension of the api. If there were risk > that we'd be opening the door to later adding "autorequireallbutfirst" and > "autorequirethird" and such could see objecting strongly (heck, I'd be > objecting strongly myself) but in this case it seems like a semantically > sound addition that isn't likely to get out of hand and could plausibly be > useful elsewhere. > > Maybe it's not really so icky. I wanted something that treated autorequires > in more unified fashion, and was trying to think of a way to push > information down into the type and/or yield items selectively from the > autorequire blocks. But even if I came up with something it would almost > certainly break the existing API. > > Shall I code up a weather-balloon patch for autorequirefirst? > Fine by me. -- M ----------------------------------------------------------- When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. -- 1920's parody of the maritime general prudential rule ------------------------------------------------------------ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
