Re: [Condor-devel] [classad-users] RFC: an implementation of classads enhanced with macro evaluation

[Alain Roy <roy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 13, 2012, at 5:31 PM, Erik Erlandson wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 09:36 -0500, Alain Roy wrote:
> 
>> 1) I really like the fact that we have a definitive ClassAd reference manual that carefully defines the semantics of the language. I think that any extensions, including macros, should be added to the reference manual. Doing this will be useful not only as documentation but will help you ensure that you can unambiguously define how macros work.
>> 
> 
> I'm willing to poke a flag in the sand and say I think it's a worthwhile
> extension to the language.   The question is, who would I need to
> convince: who maintains the classad language spec?
> 
> 
>> 2) I'm still a bit concerned that macros will be confusing when used outside of the configuration system because it won't be obvious to users when they are parsed. 
> 
> I think it's not likely to be an issue in the real world anytime soon.
> Even if I succeeded in enhancing the official language spec, that has no
> direct bearing on whether it gets into condor's implementation.  

I think that if we add it to the spec, we should add it to the implementation. They should be tied: if we don't do one, we don't do the other. 

No one maintains the spec, but the Condor development team maintains the C++ ClassAd implementation. I think if you convince them, you win. 

-alain