-----Original Message----- From: Ed Leafe <[email protected]> Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <[email protected]> Date: November 14, 2016 at 11:29:59 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [api]
> On Nov 14, 2016, at 6:04 AM, milanisko k wrote: > > > I'd like to ask about possible ``=in:``[1] operator negation implementation > > Should the implementation be a negative field name such as > > ``?state=in:a,b,c¬_state=in:x,y,z``? > > Or rather a negated operator: ``?state=in:a,b,c&state=not_in:x,y,z``? > > There already is the ``=neq:`` operator specified in the filtering spec[1], > > so I guess > ``=not_in:/=nin:/=out:`` might be more appropriate? > > The latter looks better to me. I’d like to get feedback on the exact choice > of ``=not_in:/=nin:/=out:`` > to recommend. Personally, I prefer ‘nin’, but I’ll defer to others on that. not_in is nice and explicit while nin and out are a bit, more clever. I think we should avoid trying to be clever. That said, what about something like state=!in:x,y,z This just makes me nervous that we're beginning to define our own query language. -- Ian Cordasco __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
