[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: editfiles complexity
From: |
Systems Administrator |
Subject: |
Re: editfiles complexity |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:19:33 +1100 (EST) |
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 Mark.Burgess@iu.hio.no wrote:
> The main constraint on editfiles is that operations should be convergent.
> This means that one should not split the commands into something looking
> like "perl" or "C" as you suggest in
>
> IF [No(t)] <condition> [Parameters] DO <action> [Parameters]
Can you give me an example of something non-convergent that the
current structure does a good job of preventing? Or is it a matter of
mindset? (I assume the second for the rest of this e-mail). What's the
difference between all the current editfiles statements containing the
word "If", and my suggestion above?
>
> But perhaps something equivalent can be done. Like renaming the
> commands hierarchically.
>
> <condition>.<action>(parameters)
Hmm. That might work. From what I can see, you're basically
allowing the same thing, but trying to get people to think convergently
about it. Would it be more cfenginely if we had:
<condition> = ( <actions> )
Or maybe if we didn't call it "IF".
WHERE [No(t)] <condition> [Parameters] DO <action> [Parameters]
Or maybe we're not thinking convergently about the whole
editfiles thing.
Btw, it might be cool to have an "onlyone" option, so that you can
say the comment below.
-----
If x matches y, then z should be true, but there should only be one line
where x matches y.
-----
Of course, that's not a syntax suggestion :).
Eagerly await the next installment,
:)
--
Tim Nelson
Systems Administrator
Sunet Internet
Tel: +61 3 5241 1155
Fax: +61 3 5241 6187
Web: http://www.sunet.com.au/
Email: sysadmin@sunet.com.au
- editfiles complexity, Systems Administrator, 2004/01/19
- Re: editfiles complexity,
Systems Administrator <=