Yesterday you sent me mail regarding [rrd-developers] Re: Some minor...: *> > *> > My reason for disagreeing with the "LST" alias, is the fact that it's *> > not really a standard abreviation. Simply having a TLA for every OP *> > is IMHO not the way to go. I can see the point to AVERAGE => AVG, as *> > I'm a lazy bastard. But how are you going to go with ROUND? What *> > about RANDOM? Are they both going to be RND? *> > *> You got a point there however my reasons for "LST" are IMO different than *> just have an abreviation. When debugging rrd_graph input it would be very *> nice to be able to write: *> AREA:val2#FFFF00:"value 2" *> GPRINT:val2:MAX:"Max %6.2lf %sxxx" *> GPRINT:val2:MIN:"Min %6.2lf %Sxxx" *> GPRINT:val2:AVG:"Avg %6.2lf %Sxxx" *> GPRINT:val2:LST:"Cur %6.2lf %Sxxx\\n" *> and not *> AREA:val2#FFFF00:"value 2" *> GPRINT:val2:MAX:"Maximum %6.2lf %sxxx" *> GPRINT:val2:MIN:"Minimum %6.2lf %Sxxx" *> GPRINT:val2:AVERAGE:"Average %6.2lf %Sxxx" *> GPRINT:val2:LAST:"Last %6.2lf %Sxxx\\n" *> Furthermore, MIN and MAX are abreviated already... *> It won't be necessary for RANDOM, ROUND and other RPN operators, it is *> the consolidation function I was talking about. *> *> > Also, I could make as strong an argument to not use "INT", but instead *> > introduce a new operator called "#", which will give you the integer *> > part of the number on the top of the stack [push(int(pop(TOS)))]. Then *> > the above could be replaced with: "x,/,#" and "x,0.5,+,#". This way *> > keeping things in the same vein as other +,-,/,%,*,... Of course, this *> > would introduce a slightly non-standard operator, one I'd be quite willing *> > to see not implemented... *> > *> Perhaps the other way around: Keep '+' and '-', '*' and '/' as they are *> each others opposite. Use "mod", "int", "div", "frac" and others that *> do not have common operators. '%' is then an exception for backward *> compatibility. To avoid the discussion in the future: '!' could be *> not (negate) or fac and should therefore not be used. Use "FAC" and "NOT". *> *> Tobi, you wrote about the "INT" operator being more general useful. *> I do agree about that but I do think that if you only want operators *> that fall in that category you should mention it now. I'm sure that *> not only I will come up with other operators that are not-so-general :)
I have no general opinion on these issues yet ... but we might have to do some performance evaluations of rrd_graph to see if the CDEF language verbosity has a siginificant impact ... cheers tobi *> *> > *> > Just my $0.03CDN worth... *> > *> My HFL0,05 (smallest coin over here :) *> *> Regards, *> Alex *> BTW:Nice to see so much response, it seems the list as come alive again *> *> -- *> * To unsubscribe from the rrd-developers mailing list, send a message with the *> subject: unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *> *> -- ______ __ _ /_ __/_ / / (_) Oetiker, Timelord & SysMgr @ EE-Dept ETH-Zurich / // _ \/ _ \/ / TEL: +41(0)1-6325286 FAX:...1517 ICQ: 10419518 /_/ \.__/_.__/_/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ee-staff.ethz.ch/~oetiker -- * To unsubscribe from the rrd-developers mailing list, send a message with the subject: unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
