On 20 Dec 2014, at 03:01, Dmitri Zimine dzim...@stackstorm.com wrote: Another observation on naming consistency - mistral uses dash, like `for-each`. Heat uses _underscores when naming YAML keys. So does TOSCA standard. We should have thought about this earlier but it may be not late
On 20 Dec 2014, at 06:54, Dmitri Zimine dzim...@stackstorm.com wrote: I appended some more ideas on making for-each loop more readable / less confusing in the document. It’s not rocking the boat (yet) - all the key agreements done that far, stay so far. It’s refinements. Please
Thanks Angus. One obvious thing is we either make it somewhat consistent, or name it differently. These looks similar, at least on the surface. I wonder if the feedback we’ve got so far (for-each is confusing because it brings wrong expectations) is applicable to Heat, too. Another
Based on the feedback so far, I updated the document and added some more details from the comments and discussions. We still think for-each as a keyword confuses people by setting up some behavior expectations (e.g., it will run sequentially, you can work with data inside the loop, you can
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Nikolay Makhotkin nmakhot...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi, Here is the doc with suggestions on specification for for-each feature. You are free to comment and ask questions.
I had a short user feedback sessions with Patrick and James, the short summary is: 1) simplify the syntax to optimize for the most common use case 2) 'concurrency' is the best word - but bring it out of for-each to task level, or task/policies 3) all-permutation - relatively rare case, either
Thanks Nikolay, I also left my comments and tend to like Alt2 better than others. Agree with Dmitri that “all-permutations” thing can be just a different construct in the language and “concurrency” should be rather a policy than a property of “for-each” because it doesn’t have any impact on