[Grok-dev] Re: "baseclass" or "ignore"?
faassen at startifact.com
Fri Oct 26 10:21:57 EDT 2007
Jan-Wijbrand Kolman wrote:
> Besides the loss of symetry with the class name convention we have, I
> just thought about the following:
> Currently the directives have a "declarative" nature as I see it. They
> say something about the class and what it is. They're not so much actual
> instructions for Grok. Grok "just" knows how to interpret the
> declarations and acts on it.
> So, if people really think something with "ignore" in it will read more
> clearly than "grok.baseclass()", then at least I think it should be
I think this is a good point. I'm -1 to changing this to grok.ignore().
Also -1 to grok.ignored(), which would indeed be a better name as it's
more consistent with the other directives.
If someone can point out a use case where they wish to use
grok.baseclass() while what they're implementing is not intended to be a
baseclass, that would be a good argument for changing this. If not, I
think we should stick with what we have.
More information about the Grok-dev