[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: editfiles complexity

From: Systems Administrator
Subject: Re: editfiles complexity
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:19:33 +1100 (EST)

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 address@hidden wrote:

> The main constraint on editfiles is that operations should be convergent.
> This means that one should not split the commands into something looking
> like "perl" or "C" as you suggest in
>  IF [No(t)] <condition> [Parameters] DO <action> [Parameters]

        Can you give me an example of something non-convergent that the
current structure does a good job of preventing?  Or is it a matter of
mindset?  (I assume the second for the rest of this e-mail).  What's the
difference between all the current editfiles statements containing the
word "If", and my suggestion above?

> But perhaps something equivalent can be done. Like renaming the
> commands hierarchically.
>   <condition>.<action>(parameters)

        Hmm.  That might work.  From what I can see, you're basically
allowing the same thing, but trying to get people to think convergently
about it.  Would it be more cfenginely if we had:

        <condition> = ( <actions> )

        Or maybe if we didn't call it "IF".

        WHERE [No(t)] <condition> [Parameters] DO <action> [Parameters]

        Or maybe we're not thinking convergently about the whole
editfiles thing.

        Btw, it might be cool to have an "onlyone" option, so that you can
say the comment below.
If x matches y, then z should be true, but there should only be one line
where x matches y.

        Of course, that's not a syntax suggestion :).

        Eagerly await the next installment,


Tim Nelson
Systems Administrator
Sunet Internet
Tel: +61 3 5241 1155
Fax: +61 3 5241 6187
Email: address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]