Luke Kanies schrieb:
> 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.
>
Just for the fun of it, a define that creates $name files in /tmp:
define mul() {
if ($name > 0) {
file { "/tmp/$name": ensure => exists }
$next = add($name, -1)
mul { $next: }
}
}
I think there was a recent patch to get the comparison into the if(),
else this could be eumulated by a function too.
Regards, DavidS
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
