On Nov 14, 2016, at 6:04 AM, milanisko k <vetri...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd like to ask about possible ``=in:``[1] operator negation implementation > Should the implementation be a negative field name such as > ``?state=in:a,b,c¬_state=in:x,y,z``? > Or rather a negated operator: ``?state=in:a,b,c&state=not_in:x,y,z``? > There already is the ``=neq:`` operator specified in the filtering spec[1], > so I guess ``=not_in:/=nin:/=out:`` might be more appropriate?
The latter looks better to me. I’d like to get feedback on the exact choice of ``=not_in:/=nin:/=out:`` to recommend. Personally, I prefer ‘nin’, but I’ll defer to others on that. -- Ed Leafe __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
