[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Pyatcron-devel-list] Some comments on Brian code
From: |
Julien Olivier |
Subject: |
RE: [Pyatcron-devel-list] Some comments on Brian code |
Date: |
Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:13:18 +0000 |
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 21:59, Childers, Matthew wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Julien Olivier [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:36 PM
> > To: address@hidden
> > Subject: Re: [Pyatcron-devel-list] Some comments on Brian code
> >
> >
> > > Actually, they expect strings. My reasoning behind that was that
> cron
> > > accepts ranges (e.g. 2-5), lists (e.g. 1,2,3), step values (e.g.
> */5)
> > > and so on. So, are we not going to have those kinds of
> functionality?
> > > And what about the default value of '*'? If implemented as an
> integer,
> > > would we just use 0 for that?
> >
> > I guess it should be possible to "emulate" all that functionalities
> > using string arrays, isn't it ?
> >
>
> That is a good point Brian. I would imagine we would just need to
> accept strings. Not necessarily string arrays, since we should be able
> to set all the options for a value with one string.
Really, I don't see how it is harder to use int arrays instead of "*",
or "2-5", as it is just a "human" representation of an array of
integers, nothing more. For example, if you want to say "all the days of
the week except from the 5th one", you could write "*/5" or
"1,2,3,4,6,7". For a computer program, it's easier to handle this
information if it stored as an array containing {1,2,3,4,6,7} than in a
string containing "*/5", IMO at least.
--
Julien Olivier <address@hidden>
- RE: [Pyatcron-devel-list] Some comments on Brian code, Childers, Matthew, 2003/11/18
- RE: [Pyatcron-devel-list] Some comments on Brian code,
Julien Olivier <=
- RE: [Pyatcron-devel-list] Some comments on Brian code, Childers, Matthew, 2003/11/18
- RE: [Pyatcron-devel-list] Some comments on Brian code, Childers, Matthew, 2003/11/18