I merely clarify the documentation, I don't write the code :-) I leave it to Mark to reply on this one.
But yes, it would have been difficult to define YrMod3Eq2, because then you have to work very hard to make everyone happy, and eventually someone starts insisting on getting real math, and then the whole promise theory implementation breaks, because you can't effectively mix procedural code with declarative code :-) And in defense of declarative code: it is hard to grok, and occasionally annoying, but once you DO grok it, it is amazing how much you can do, and how well it works. So like Miyamoto Musashi says in "The Book of Five Rings": think hard on this. -Dan On May 7, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Jerome Baum wrote: > On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 04:49, Daniel V. Klein <d...@lonewolf.com> wrote: > Some business models use a 3-year lifecycle. Amortization and probably other > stuff. Since you can't do math directly in Cfengine, a "lifecycle index" is > a quick way of getting a value based o the year, for evaluating lifecycles. > > How come 3 years? Why not 2 or 4? I get that it might be common, but would it > have been that difficult to define, say, YrMod3Eq2 (for year % 3 == 2) and > other classes for modulo 2 to 5 years (rather, up to come value that can be > ./configure'd)? > > So, is there a specific reason for this choice or it is arbitrary because > there had to be _some_ choice at all? > > -- > Jerome Baum > > tel +49-1578-8434336 > email jer...@jeromebaum.com > -- > PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A > PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA > _______________________________________________ Help-cfengine mailing list Help-cfengine@cfengine.org https://cfengine.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine
