Re: [Fab-user] Completed suggestions: load and config (#1, #2, #3)

[Jeff Forcier]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Christian Vest Hansen
<address@hidden> wrote:

> I'm not so sure about that. The idea was, at least partly, to be rid
> of the `set` operation because it shadows the data-type of the same
> name. I just didn't go through and remove-slash-fold-them-into-config
> because there were so many other changes to look at.

True, I keep forgetting that was one of the goals here. I'm all for
renaming set(); I just feel that "config" is not the right word for
something that will hold, well, non-configuration values...

> Also, I actually don't see what the advantage would be to having these
> two namespaces.

...and that's why I brought up the two-namespaces idea. My main
problem is that configuration data is not the same thing as user data,
and saying "config(foo=bar)" when you're not setting actual config
data, feels wrong.

> I don't like splitting this into two seperate namespaces for two
> reasons: 1) people risk setting `fab_` variables in their own
> namespace and 2) we'd have to decide on a name resolution order, might
> be different from what people expect and/or make it harder for them to
> reason about the code.

Both good points. I'm fine with a single flat namespace, but I'd
prefer to rename Configuration/config to something more neutral,
perhaps going back to "environment" (or a derivative thereof), or
"vars", or something along those lines.

-Jeff