Re: 'Considered Harmful' Considered Harmful

On Oct 26, 2007, at 2:44 AM, David Schmitt wrote:

> I hear you, since you yourself give the best example why my  
> inflammatory
> subject was a bad move: I never spoke out against parent nodes per- 
> se, but
> against "template nodes" as defined in GlossaryOfTerms?version=16  
> and used in
> PuppetBestPractice?version=18 , which -- as seen often on the IRC  
> -- confuse
> the heck out of some people, due to the nature of scopes. Also the  
> problem
> is -- as far as I am currently  concerned -- solved by the changes  
> I made to
> the wiki.
>
> Please accept my apologies.

Heh, I wasn't looking for an apology, just pointing out something  
that was a bit meta and thus both appropriate and funny.

I actually think I've found a way to fix the majority of the  
confusion around using node inheritance, but I want to see how hard  
it's actually going to be before I go sending a complicated email  
about it.  The summary is that it would make all class scopes have  
the node scope as their parent scope, so that classes could look up  
variables defined in node scopes.

  --
  Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
                      --Napolean Bonaparte
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com