On 2025/05/07 0:37, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Akihiko Odaki writes:
On 2025/02/06 18:48, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Akihiko Odaki writes:
[...]
I understand we have something like this:
* true: on if possible, else off
* false: off (always possible)
Which one is the default?
It depends
On Tue, 6 May 2025, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Akihiko Odaki writes:
On 2025/02/06 18:48, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Akihiko Odaki writes:
[...]
I understand we have something like this:
* true: on if possible, else off
* false: off (always possible)
Which one is the default?
It depends
Akihiko Odaki writes:
> On 2025/02/06 18:48, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Akihiko Odaki writes:
[...]
>> I understand we have something like this:
>>
>> * true: on if possible, else off
>>
>> * false: off (always possible)
>>
>> Which one is the default?
>
> It depends. Some properties have
On 2025/02/07 21:46, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 01:31:47PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Akihiko Odaki writes:
[...]
Let me go back to the discussion of the bool/OnOffAuto problem below:
The values the command line syntax accepts are on/yes/true/y and off/no/false/n
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 01:31:47PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Akihiko Odaki writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Let me go back to the discussion of the bool/OnOffAuto problem below:
> >
> > The values the command line syntax accepts are on/yes/true/y and
> > off/no/false/n.
> >
> > For the command l
Akihiko Odaki writes:
[...]
> Let me go back to the discussion of the bool/OnOffAuto problem below:
>
> The values the command line syntax accepts are on/yes/true/y and
> off/no/false/n.
>
> For the command line syntax, you can always use on/off whether the type is
> bool or OnOffAuto. In my o
BALATON Zoltan writes:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2025, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
>> On 2025/02/06 18:48, Markus Armbruster wrote:
This problem can be solved
using an existing mechanism, OnOffAuto, which differentiates the "auto"
state and explicit the
On 2025/02/06 22:23, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2025/02/06 18:48, Markus Armbruster wrote:
This problem can be solved
using an existing mechanism, OnOffAuto, which differentiates the "auto"
state and explicit th
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2025/02/06 18:48, Markus Armbruster wrote:
This problem can be solved
using an existing mechanism, OnOffAuto, which differentiates the "auto"
state and explicit the "on" state.
I guess you're proposing som
On 2025/02/06 18:48, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Akihiko Odaki writes:
On 2025/02/06 0:29, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Akihiko Odaki writes:
Accept bool literals for OnOffAuto properties for consistency with bool
properties. This enables users to set the "on" or "off" value in a
uniform syntax w
Akihiko Odaki writes:
> On 2025/02/06 0:29, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Akihiko Odaki writes:
>>
>>> Accept bool literals for OnOffAuto properties for consistency with bool
>>> properties. This enables users to set the "on" or "off" value in a
>>> uniform syntax without knowing whether the "aut
Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 03:17:51PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
>> Accept bool literals for OnOffAuto properties for consistency with bool
>> properties. This enables users to set the "on" or "off" value in a
>> uniform syntax without knowing whether the "auto" value i
On 2025/02/06 0:29, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Akihiko Odaki writes:
Accept bool literals for OnOffAuto properties for consistency with bool
properties. This enables users to set the "on" or "off" value in a
uniform syntax without knowing whether the "auto" value is accepted.
This behavior is es
Akihiko Odaki writes:
> Accept bool literals for OnOffAuto properties for consistency with bool
> properties. This enables users to set the "on" or "off" value in a
> uniform syntax without knowing whether the "auto" value is accepted.
> This behavior is especially useful when converting an exist
On 2025/01/10 21:16, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 08:31:57PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2025/01/10 20:09, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 03:17:51PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
Accept bool literals for OnOffAuto properties for consistency with bool
pr
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 08:31:57PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
> On 2025/01/10 20:09, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 03:17:51PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
> > > Accept bool literals for OnOffAuto properties for consistency with bool
> > > properties. This enables users to se
On 2025/01/10 20:09, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 03:17:51PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
Accept bool literals for OnOffAuto properties for consistency with bool
properties. This enables users to set the "on" or "off" value in a
uniform syntax without knowing whether the "aut
On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 03:17:51PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
> Accept bool literals for OnOffAuto properties for consistency with bool
> properties. This enables users to set the "on" or "off" value in a
> uniform syntax without knowing whether the "auto" value is accepted.
> This behavior is esp
Accept bool literals for OnOffAuto properties for consistency with bool
properties. This enables users to set the "on" or "off" value in a
uniform syntax without knowing whether the "auto" value is accepted.
This behavior is especially useful when converting an existing bool
property to OnOffAuto o
19 matches
Mail list logo
