On 7/11/08 18:50, Luke Kanies wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2008, at 1:03 AM, David Schmitt wrote:
>
>> 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)
you can simplify this with:
$next = $name - 1
>> mul { $next: }
>> }
>> }
> I *knew* we were in for it when Brice added better conditionals.
> Someone queue up that infinite tape... :)
:-)
--
Brice Figureau
Days of Wonder
http://www.daysofwonder.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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
