On Nov 5, 2008, at 1:14 AM, David Schmitt wrote:
>
> Luke Kanies schrieb:
>> On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:33 AM, jerico wrote:
>>> I don't agree on that. It might be a specially declarative and less
>>> procedural/imperative language and is probably not turing complete
>>> (no
>>> idea about that, I didn't try the proof!) But maybe this is just an
>>> argument about wording and therefore not so important.
>>
>> I agree it's mostly a terminology point, but it's definitely not
>> Turing-complete, although Brice might have slipped that in with his
>> last series of updates. :)
>
>
> I beg to differ. Puppet manifests have recursion (define) and choice
> (if
> ). In my reading that's enough for turing completeness.
Is that really recursion, though? Wouldn't we need to be able to pass
resources to the resources, which we can't currently do?
I'd've thought we'd at least need to be able to have the definitions
interact with the resources in some way.
--
To my embarrassment I was born in bed with a lady.
--Wilson Mizner
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
