[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Patch] Revised resource-support [aka. "proc"-support]
From: |
Jan-Henrik Haukeland |
Subject: |
Re: [Patch] Revised resource-support [aka. "proc"-support] |
Date: |
13 Aug 2002 17:26:13 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Civil Service) |
Christian Hopp <address@hidden> writes:
> > Well it's going to look like: IF(expr) ? While this is a better syntax
> > IMHO: IF(expr) THEN action. And it's really not that much more text.
>
> Puny c-like programmer. (-: Who needs nowadays brackets for
> expression.
Actually this wasn't the point I was trying to make. It was more that
the statement:
<resource> [<operator>] <limit> [<cycles>] [ACTION <action>]
without an action at the end would look like a single IF expr. I would
like to change it to:
<resource> <operator> <limit> [<cycles>] ACTION
Assuming [] denotes optional statement. This way you will have the
following abstract statement. IF expr THEN ACTION instead of IF expr
which implies IF expr THEN ALERT. The same with operator; it's should
be required to make a statement explicitly clear. cycles on the other
hand are optional and means that the test is done for every cycles
(but this is probably allready taken care of if I know you).
> Somebody has made it a whitespace.
That would be me :)
> I know, it's there to express, e.g.
>
> start program = "/bin/true"
Just to make it look nicer.
> Whether we...
>
> 1) disallow "=" as whitespace completely
> 2) allow "=" only in certain positions, like
> [set|start|stop] <options> [[=|] <value>]
> 3) disable "mathematical" operator short cuts "<,>,=,!=".
>
> 1) is easy, but not nice, users might have to change config files
> 3) is easy, but comparison looks much nicer with "<,>,=,!="
> 2) a pile of work but enables 1&3.
The simplest solution is to introduce a new operator for equality,
namely '=='. This is well known in C.
> Right now it's something in between. "<,>,!=" do work, "=" doesn't.
We should really have an operator for equality. Either you use '==' or
you will have to change all production rules in the grammer. For instance:
start : START PATH { current->start= $2; }
| START EQUAL PATH { current->start= $2; }
;
Or maybe we can get away with (probably)
start : START EQUAL PATH { current->start= $2; }
;
But again I suggest that EQUAL is set to '==' it's easier that way.
> [udp test]
> I think thats okay. Maybe a note in the readme would be nice, in case
> someone has trouble with it.
Sure.
--
Jan-Henrik Haukeland
- [Patch] Revised resource-support [aka. "proc"-support], Christian Hopp, 2002/08/09
- Re: [Patch] Revised resource-support [aka. "proc"-support], Mark Ferlatte, 2002/08/09
- Re: [Patch] Revised resource-support [aka. "proc"-support], Jan-Henrik Haukeland, 2002/08/09
- Re: [Patch] Revised resource-support [aka. "proc"-support], Christian Hopp, 2002/08/12
- Re: [Patch] Revised resource-support [aka. "proc"-support], Jan-Henrik Haukeland, 2002/08/12
- Re: [Patch] Revised resource-support [aka. "proc"-support], Christian Hopp, 2002/08/13
- Re: [Patch] Revised resource-support [aka. "proc"-support], Jan-Henrik Haukeland, 2002/08/13
- Re: [Patch] Revised resource-support [aka. "proc"-support], Christian Hopp, 2002/08/13
- Re: [Patch] Revised resource-support [aka. "proc"-support], Jan-Henrik Haukeland, 2002/08/13
- Re: [Patch] Revised resource-support [aka. "proc"-support], Christian Hopp, 2002/08/13
- Re: [Patch] Revised resource-support [aka. "proc"-support],
Jan-Henrik Haukeland <=