[rrd-developers] Re: Some minor changes proposal

[Tobias Oetiker]

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 rrd-developers-request at list.ee.ethz.ch
*> 
*> 

-- 
 ______    __   _
/_  __/_  / /  (_) Oetiker, Timelord & SysMgr @ EE-Dept ETH-Zurich
 / // _ \/ _ \/ / TEL: +41(0)1-6325286  FAX:...1517  ICQ: 10419518 
/_/ \.__/_.__/_/ oetiker at ee.ethz.ch http://ee-staff.ethz.ch/~oetiker

--
* To unsubscribe from the rrd-developers mailing list, send a message with the
  subject: unsubscribe to rrd-developers-request at list.ee.ethz.ch