> On Aug 12, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Henrik Lindberg <henrik.lindb...@cloudsmith.com> > wrote: > >> On 2014-12-08 22:02, Spencer Krum wrote: >> >> >> 1) I really don't want to see variable expansion in >> expressions that >> resolve to the names of types. This will be misused, it >> will make code >> unreadable. Please leave it out. Sets of parameters only >> make sense to >> distinct types anyways, if two types really do accept all >> the same >> parameters, then the RAL should be leveraged and different >> providers >> written. >> >> >> It is already used (via create_resources), and people want it to support >> integration use cases between more tightly coupled modules. >> >> >> The fact that only four modules use it is, to me, exactly validation >> that it’s a rare enough use case that it should be left to things >> like functions. >> >> The language should be optimized for the most common use cases, not >> the complete list of them. >> >> >> >> I think Luke has nailed it. Only in the rarest circumstances will this >> be used to make the code better, and thats not something that should be >> optimized for. >> > > It is not "optimized" for that in any way. We either validate it to be an > error, or we don't. It does not alter anything else.
He didn't mean in the technical sense, he meant in the sense of design and user experience. Design is about saying no to things, and this is something I think we should say no to, because it optimizes the user experience of the language around the wrong things. [...] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/5731590119185139914%40unknownmsgid. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
