On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
> On May 16, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Deepak Giridharagopal
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Chris Price
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> p.s., if we do go down this path it would be in
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Luke Kanies wrote:
> On May 16, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Deepak Giridharagopal
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Chris Price wrote:
p.s., if we do go down this path it would be interesting
On May 16, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Deepak Giridharagopal
> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Chris Price wrote:
>>>
>>> p.s., if we do go down this path it would be interesting to see if there
>>> is some sort of existing library or st
Since the language already has boolean logic expressions
(http://docs.puppetlabs.com/guides/language_guide.html#expressions), it seems
like what we are looking for is maybe some way of treating expressions as
first-class and being able to pass them as parameters in order to be evaluated
later.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Deepak Giridharagopal
wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Chris Price wrote:
>>
>> p.s., if we do go down this path it would be interesting to see if there
>> is some sort of existing library or standard specification for boolean logic
>> expressions that we
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Chris Price wrote:
> p.s., if we do go down this path it would be interesting to see if there
> is some sort of existing library or standard specification for boolean
> logic expressions that we could piggy-back off of, rather than rolling our
> own.
>
There are
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:17 PM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Chris Price"
> > To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:07:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Community input requested o
- Original Message -
> From: "Chris Price"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:07:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Community input requested on potential `unless_uid`
> addition to user resources
>
> p.s., if we d
p.s., if we do go down this path it would be interesting to see if there is
some sort of existing library or standard specification for boolean logic
expressions that we could piggy-back off of, rather than rolling our own.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Chris Price wrote:
> Aren't we, in effe
Aren't we, in effect, introducing another (mini, boolean) language with
this sort of proposal, though? I agree that the generality and flexibility
is appealing, but the idea of designing and supporting another parser /
lexer gives me pause.
Not to say that the benefits might not be worthwhile...
On May 16, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Pieter van de Bruggen wrote:
>
> […]
> At the risk of getting booed off, what of this as a syntax?
>
> class users::resources {
> resources { 'user':
> purge => true,
> unless => 'uid < 1 OR uid > 2';
> }
> }
>
> This seems to be a more flexible
It's not horrible, but you need to allow for intermediate ranges.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Pieter van de Bruggen
wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Jeff Weiss
> wrote:
>>
>> Puppet Community,
>>
>> We need your help.
>>
>> We have a terrific contribution from Bart ten Brinke that
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Jeff Weiss wrote:
> Puppet Community,
>
> We need your help.
>
> We have a terrific contribution from Bart ten Brinke that would add an
> `unless_uid` parameter to user resources. The pull is request is 628 (
> https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/pull/628).
>
> W
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Jeff Weiss wrote:
> Puppet Community,
>
> We need your help.
>
> We have a terrific contribution from Bart ten Brinke that would add an
> `unless_uid` parameter to user resources. The pull is request is 628 (
> https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/pull/628).
>
> W
I very much like the idea of having a separate variable such as
'user_range' as proposed by David.
This would allow for a single declaration instead of having to repeat
things for each user that's created.
There should probably be multiple options though:
user_modifier { 'min_id': value => '1001
> What are your thoughts? Is this intuitive enough? Is it a must-have feature?
I think it's valuable and as you said there are valid uses cases where
such operations are currently not possible with the default language
features.
Why do you call it terrific? What are your concerns? I couldn't find
On 2012-05-15 18:56, Jeff Weiss wrote:
Puppet Community,
We need your help.
We have a terrific contribution from Bart ten Brinke that would add an
`unless_uid` parameter to user resources. The pull is request is 628
(https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/pull/628).
We acknowledge the clear use
Puppet Community,
We need your help.
We have a terrific contribution from Bart ten Brinke that would add an
`unless_uid` parameter to user resources. The pull is request is 628 (
https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/pull/628).
We acknowledge the clear use case around needing to exclude specific
18 matches
Mail list logo
