Declarative DSL #2

nwmcsween · 2016-01-22T16:50:39Z

Consider a DSL that is similar to make with explicitly set defaults to map to fqdn's (via import/whatever).
This way targets could be handled by an external program of some sort that 'schedules' hosts (e.g host with least latency to $someplace start http server).

josephholsten · 2016-02-01T06:49:24Z

I've been thinking about cfg mgmt in golang, and this DSL is where puppet & chef really shine.

One of their most useful accidents (not present in ansible, terraform) is the ability to create resource-providers entirely in the DSL out of other resources. I'm of the opinion that this lack is causing a lot of reuse pain in the Ansible Galaxy.

I'd love to help spike a plugin/DSL syntax using lua like the https://github.com/mozilla-services/heka project is doing.

purpleidea · 2016-02-01T08:05:25Z

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

I've been thinking about cfg mgmt in golang, and this DSL is where puppet
& chef really shine.

One of their most useful accidents (not present in ansible, terraform) is
the ability to create resource-providers entirely in the DSL out of other
resources. I'm of the opinion that this lack is causing a lot of reuse pain
in the Ansible Galaxy.

Can you be a bit more specific about what you mean here? Are you talking
about create_resources() ?

I'd love to help spike a plugin/DSL syntax using lua like the
https://github.com/mozilla-services/heka project is doing.

Great, I'd love to have you involved. I've actually just started looking
at lua as a possibility because of it's ease of embed-ability. Nothing
certain yet, but a few links that were discussed the other day include:

https://github.com/Shopify/go-lua
https://github.com/yuin/gopher-lua

and examples:
https://github.com/kabukky/journey
https://github.com/xyproto/algernon

More discussion to come!

nwmcsween · 2016-02-01T08:17:29Z

Puppet and chef both have bad DSL's in my opinion. A less constricting way to do this is write a DSL that allows you to shell out (such as make) and just focuses on the 'resolving' graphs, this has many benefits.

purpleidea · 2016-02-01T09:03:55Z

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Nathan notifications@github.com wrote:

Puppet and chef both have bad DSL's in my opinion. A less constricting way
to do this is write a DSL that allows you to shell out (such as make) and
just focuses on the 'resolving' graphs, this has many benefits.

Could you elaborate on this comment please? I really agree about the DSL
part, which I do think needs improving, but your comments about "resolving
graphs" isn't clear.

Thanks!

dalen · 2016-02-01T13:47:27Z

One of their most useful accidents (not present in ansible, terraform) is the ability to create resource-providers entirely in the DSL out of other resources. I'm of the opinion that this lack is causing a lot of reuse pain in the Ansible Galaxy.

Can you be a bit more specific about what you mean here? Are you talking about create_resources() ?

I think this was in reference to the define keyword in Puppet which lets you create a new resource type without actually writing a type & provider.

purpleidea · 2016-02-01T13:54:45Z

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Erik Dalén notifications@github.com wrote:

I think this was in reference to the define keyword in Puppet which lets
you create a new resource type without actually writing a type & provider.

If that is the correct interpretation, then it is absolutely a design
requirement for the DSL. The idea of composed "resources" is fundamental,
and while the user should be able to do it in modules, the only thing I
haven't completely figured out is how much of the useful secondary
resources and stdlib I will write in native DSL vs. golang. Eg, if I have a
"hosts" (/etc/hosts) resource, should it be native golang or a combination
of the inotify file type and a template, etc... That conversation will have
to be postponed till we have a DSL.

purpleidea · 2016-02-01T14:17:53Z

Also, I realized that I have mentioned this in discussion, but maybe it's not clear in the blog post, but the current "yaml" definition files are merely placeholders for testing the engine before there is a proper DSL. It is absolutely temporary, and I can't wait to remove all of that parsing code.

josephholsten · 2016-02-02T18:49:10Z

the define keyword in Puppet which lets you create a new resource type without actually writing a type & provider.

Yep, this.

I can't wait to remove all of that parsing code.

<3

josephholsten · 2016-02-02T20:06:36Z

TL;DR: external process resource-providers require a trade-off between implementation complexity and smart dependency things

@nwmcsween I'd love to do everything by having external tools make the changes. But most unix tools aren't designed to act idempotently. More so, a single tool often doen't do everything required. For example, a mere mkdir or cat will not create files with a specified owner, group or mode. So mere make-style file existence isn't enough to actually verify a file resource has been created correctly. At which point, our dependency resolver needs to know how to check if a thing is in the desired state. Which brings us back to needing resource implementation code.

Ansible's external-plugin model gives the separation between the execution-coordinator and the resource-provider implementation. But it runs each resource a single time, which internally does a separate check-phase and apply-phase. Compare this to puppet, &c which do a complete check-phase in all resources before doing an apply-phase. I don't have a concrete example right now, but this causes the dependency system in ansible to be very weak.

Terraform's external plugin model uses full-duplex communication between the coordinator and the resource provider. This allows a complete check-phase across all resources separate from the apply-phase. It also means the provider doesn't need to be run a separate check-process from the apply-process, even lets you have a single process for all resources using the same provider. The pain here is that you don't get to write plugins as standard unix tools naively reading from ARGV & STDIN, writing to STDOUT.

And I don't even want to think about parallel execution implications for resource providers. But that sounds especially unpleasant with ansible-style plugins.

nwmcsween · 2016-02-02T20:21:33Z

This is exactly the same as make, the onus is on the developer to make sure
there are no hidden dependencies

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016, 12:08 PM Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

TL;DR: external process resource-providers require a trade-off between
implementation complexity and smart dependency things

@nwmcsween https://github.com/nwmcsween I'd love to do everything by
having external tools make the changes. But most unix tools aren't designed
to act idempotently. More so, a single tool often doen't do everything
required. For example, a mere mkdir or cat will not create files with a
specified owner, group or mode. So mere make-style file existence isn't
enough to actually verify a file resource has been created correctly. At
which point, our dependency resolver needs to know how to check if a thing
is in the desired state. Which brings us back to needing resource
implementation code.

Ansible's external-plugin model gives the separation between the
execution-coordinator and the resource-provider implementation. But it runs
each resource a single time, which internally does a separate check-phase
and apply-phase. Compare this to puppet, &c which do a complete check-phase
in all resources before doing an apply-phase. I don't have a concrete
example right now, but this causes the dependency system in ansible to be
very weak.

Terraform's external plugin model uses full-duplex communication between
the coordinator and the resource provider. This allows a complete
check-phase across all resources separate from the apply-phase. It also
means the provider doesn't need to be run a separate check-process from the
apply-process, even lets you have a single process for all resources using
the same provider. The pain here is that you don't get to write plugins as
standard unix tools naively reading from ARGV & STDIN, writing to STDOUT.

And I don't even want to think about parallel execution implications for
resource providers. But that sounds especially unpleasant with
ansible-style plugins.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2 (comment).

cavaliercoder · 2016-04-01T06:33:35Z

I'm a long time user of Puppet DSL and I've come to really hate the constraints it imposes. It is improving, but everything has to be reengineered (we finally have 'for' loops!). I prefer the idea of leveraging an existing language and providing an interface for declaring resources. Basically, like Chef does with Ruby.

Consider the proof that most Puppet modules implement Ruby code to augment the shortcomings of the DSL anyway.

There's so much to start building in terms of language internals, but also writing a parser, testing framework, etc. Would it be worth it?

I'd like to see a design where the user is writing Go/other code to declare resources, dependencies, etc. while taking advantage of Go's conditionals, operators, testing framework, quality tools, etc. But using an API interface which eases/enforces idempotency, extensibility, etc. Admittedly it creates opportunity for users to start breaking things with an unconstrained API... You'd also have to include the Go compiler in your toolset. Go is also not the most declarative DSL like language...

Method chaining/LINQy stuff would be ideal IMHO. Ignoring broken syntax, something like:

AddResource(YumRepo{
  Name: "centos-base",
  URL: "http://...",
})

AddResource(Package{
  Name: "vim-enhanced",
  Version: ">=7.3",
}).DependsOn(Resources.Where({
  Type: "YumRepo",
}))

That's my thoughts though :)

purpleidea · 2016-04-01T08:37:28Z

@cavaliercoder Good comments, here are some thoughts to help continue the discussion...

No matter what decision we end up with, someone will be unhappy. Since this is the case, I've instead tried to focus on what the correct thing is, and go from there.
There is a chance, that there will eventually be some sort of golang and/or c compatible API that you'll be able to use to build the graphs through the API however you want. This might facilitate doing the sort of thing you mentioned above. Doing this in golang will probably be easiest, since the API will be written in golang. There will be a discussion about if this will be something that just splits the community and/or if it's something we want to encourage or not.
Being declarative is very important, in particular because we want to enable the possibility of being able to write analysis tools that would integrate and figure out or detect certain conditions in the multi machine space. Eg: warning, this might cause an infinite loop across N hosts sort of thing. Do you think this sort of analysis would be possible if we used a functional, non-declarative language?
Lastly, if you do want to reuse an existing language (and I agree, I would love to do this instead of having to create one) then we need a suitable candidate! I've casually added Lua to the NACK list and obviously the imperative languages like python/ruby/etc are on there too. I've been trying to learn more about functional reactive programming. I don't suppose anyone knows of a declarative functional programming language or wants to build one. In any case, do you have some suggestions of what language we could use?

Cheers!

vincentbernat · 2016-07-07T06:15:21Z

LISP could be a candidate. It's easy to implement, it's easy to parse, it's supported out of the box by any editor. It's easy to make it look like a custom DSL while still being extensible. It's easy to keep it functional. The only downside is that some people don't like parentheses position.

For example, if I take on of your example:

(resources
  (exec
    ((name "exec1")
     (cmd "echo hello from exec1")
     (timeout 0)
     (watchcmd "sleep 10s")
     (state 'present))
    ((name "exec2")
     (cmd "echo hello from exec2")
     (watchcmd "sleep 10s")
     (state 'present))))
(edges
  ((name "e1")
   from (exec "exec1")
   to (exec "exec2")))

Some parentheses could be removed for example:

(exec (("exec1"
            timeout 0
            state 'present)))

So, it looks like the YAML. No need to learn anything. If you want to use a loop, it's easy (but you have to learn the backquote):

(resources
 (exec
   `(loop for i upto 10 collect
     (list (concat "exec" (str i))
            cmd (concat "echo hello " (str i))
            timeout 0
            state 'present))))

If you a user want to introduce a new type of resource, they can write a function. If they want to extend the DSL, they can write a macro.

purpleidea · 2016-07-07T09:52:59Z

@vincentbernat Thanks for your input!

One probable requirement of the DSL will include the ability to make it reactive, and also to have the compiler/lexer written in golang. Do you know if either of these already exist in lisp?

Having said that, I did consider lisp, but I'm not sure if it would be a good choice for mainstream users. Readability is an important property. Having said that, there's nothing to stop someone from writing a lisp frontend.

vincentbernat · 2016-07-07T10:05:50Z

For a more readable variant, you can look at Clojure syntax which have lists [] and maps {}. Not using parentheses everywhere make it more readable to some users. Note that the main advantage of LISP is that you get both the programming language stuff and the DSL feel. It's difficult to have that in non-homocoinicitic languages.

What you don't want is to transform YAML into a programming language (lke Ansible).

For Go, unfortunately, I know there are many LISP implemented in Go but I have no real experience to point to a good one. What's great with LISP is that you can take a minimal implementation and works from here with macros.

purpleidea · 2016-07-07T12:07:42Z

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Vincent Bernat notifications@github.com
wrote:

For a more readable variant, you can look at Clojure syntax which have
lists [] and maps {}. Not using parentheses everywhere make it more
readable to some users. Note that the main advantage of LISP is that you
get both the programming language stuff and the DSL feel. It's difficult to
have that in non-homocoinicitic languages.

Same uncertainty on how reactive aspects would fit in.

What you don't want is to transform YAML into a programming language (lke
Ansible).

Agreed!

For Go, unfortunately, I know there are many LISP implemented in Go but I
have no real experience to point to a good one. What's great with LISP is
that you can take a minimal implementation and works from here with macros.

Thanks again for the idea! If you'd like to get more involved with patch
writing but need some help getting going and learning about some internals,
LMK :)

vincentbernat · 2016-07-07T12:21:35Z

Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment. Writing random comments in GitHub issue is easier than proposing patches. :)

BTW, as an example of LISP as DSL, there is Riemann (http://riemann.io/, but it's written in Clojure, so, more natural choice).

nwmcsween · 2016-07-07T14:16:46Z

A full blown language would kill the idea of build system like DAG, it
would also bloat and complicate it immensely. My opinion is if you want
extras you simply shell out.

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016, 5:21 AM Vincent Bernat notifications@github.com
wrote:

Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment. Writing random comments in
GitHub issue is easier than proposing patches. :)

BTW, as an example of LISP as DSL, there is Riemann (http://riemann.io/,
but it's written in Clojure, so, more natural choice).

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#2 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAmBbwr1R6cZSB8WaJpeqwKZB8w7rFC2ks5qTO9SgaJpZM4HKge_
.

dnaeon · 2016-07-12T13:12:59Z

Hi,

Just found your project, looks nice! :)

I'm also working on a similar project, where I've just recently implemented a DSL based on Lua. You might want to look at it in case you decide to go with Lua.

The project I'm working on is located at https://github.com/dnaeon/gru

purpleidea · 2016-07-12T15:19:29Z

@dnaeon Funny enough someone send me a pointer to your project just the other day, although I haven't had a chance to dig into the code yet, sorry.

I did look into using Lua, but for some design reasons unfortunately I don't think it would be a good choice, mainly because of a lack of safety constraints available in the language that we would require. The fact that you mention using it as a DSL, makes me think it's possibly a safe subset of the language that you're using?

In any case, I'd love to chat about it more, and maybe you want to join forces and help out in mgmt? Can I persuade you to have a look at my intro article or video?

https://ttboj.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/next-generation-configuration-mgmt/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVhpPF0j-iE&html5=1

I'm hanging out in the #mgmtconfig IRC channel on Freenode which you're more than welcome to join.

Cheers and thanks for the message,
James
@purpleidea

dnaeon · 2016-07-12T16:48:51Z

Hey James,

I'll check out the video and article, thanks for the links!

This week I'm traveling most of the time, but once I get back from my vacation I'll ping you in IRC.

Best regards,
Marin

purpleidea · 2016-07-13T18:27:04Z

@dnaeon Sounds good. - Enjoy your vacation!

Cheers,
James

neilhwatson · 2016-07-27T17:21:21Z

Jumping in here and I hope I get the context right. If you're going to invent a DSL for mgmt please consider publishing it as an open standard. There are so many OS config management tools and each has its own language, leading to lock-in. An open standard for future tools to use would be a great thing.

purpleidea · 2016-07-27T19:04:49Z

@neilhwatson I personally have no objections to this, there's nothing proprietary about what we're building. The first step though is to get the code written so we have a minimally viable project. Can you help with some patches ?

shawncatz · 2016-08-22T04:20:45Z

Hashicorp Config Language?
I'm guessing it's been considered, but I didn't see it in this conversation (some did mention terraform, but not HCL)... Already implemented in go. Becoming well known. Much of the graph/dependency resolution might be borrowed from existing tools like Terraform.

I'm really interested in being involved in next-gen config management. As much as I love Chef, and others, they are all pretty terrible ecosystems.

josephholsten · 2016-08-22T05:22:05Z

@shawncatz I'd be interested in what you find lacking in the chef or puppet ecosystems. I've noticed a much higher amount of modular code and code reuse in those ecosystems than in ansible, terraform and salt.

I think one of the reasons is first class resource types. It requires a complete redesign and rewrite to convert an implementation from ansible task into ansible module, or terraform module into terraform provider. This makes it much harder to get a broad community of resource implementations, and makes it more expensive to prototype new approaches, and creates a hierarchy of contributors: "real" resource devs vs mere users.

I say this as a contributor to HCL and a committer on terraform. I <3 it, but its architecture has serious drawbacks for long term growth.

purpleidea · 2016-08-22T14:22:49Z

@shawncatz How can we help you get more involved? (Feel free to discuss this on IRC with us in #mgmtconfig on Freenode)

@josephholsten and @shawncatz I looked briefly at HCL, and unfortunately I think it lacks some of the features we need, since it's much closer to a yaml than a full DSL. Thanks for the idea though!

josephholsten · 2016-08-22T15:46:40Z

If we were looking for a fancy JSON/YAML/TOML alternative, https://github.com/vstakhov/libucl was the inspiration for HCL, and much nicer IM(NS)HO.

I'm mostly in favor of Lua as a golang encore nation language, but if we want a LISP, guile is quite nice.

purpleidea · 2016-10-07T19:57:08Z

As was suggested, I figured I'd like to the HCL lib here: https://github.com/hashicorp/hcl
I had a quick look and it might turn out to be a reasonable base to modify for use in mgmt. hackers wanted.

dnaeon · 2016-10-11T09:35:43Z

Hey @purpleidea,

Just a thought about HCL - I've used HCL in the previous releases of Gru, and overall was pretty happy with it.

The syntax is fine and configuration expressed in HCL looks nice.

At some point you would want to introduce variable interpolations, add custom functions in the HCL configuration, etc. and would most likely end up with HIL as I did already.

At the end I gave up on HCL and HIL, mainly because of the reasons listed in this issue.

Incorporate HIL into Gru dnaeon/gru#30

With that said, I'm not saying that HCL/HIL are bad, they just didn't cut it for me and for what I wanted to achieve.

Anyways, thought I'd share this with you, in case you decice to go that way.

P.S. Seems we can't get a hold on IRC because of the time difference :) I'll be joining in there, maybe I'll get a hold of you next time :)

This is the 1st commit message: lang: Split FuncValue into FuncValue and SimpleFn Representing an MCL function value as a golang function from Value to Value was a mistake, it should be a function from Vertex to Vertex. Here is why this is a mistake: The output of a function like $f = fn(x) { Shell(Sprintf("seq %d", x)) } varies over time, while a single Value does not. Thus, code like Map($f, list(1, 2)) would first produce the value list("1", "1"), but then it would _not_ update to list("1", "2") when "seq 2" produces its second line. That's because with the mistaken design, when Map receives a new FuncValue or a new input list of N elements, Map calls the function from Value to Value N times and produces a single output list of N elements. Here is why the corrected design is better: Here's what happens with this new design when Map receives a new FuncValue or a new input list of N elements. First, Map constructs N item-input nodes, each of which extracts a different entry from the list. Then, Map calls the function from Vertex to Vertex N times, once for each item-input node, and thus obtain N item-output nodes. Finally, Map constructs an item-collecting node which constructs a list out of all of its inputs, and Map connects the N item-output nodes to the item-collecting node. This item-collecting node is the output of Map. The Vertex to Vertex function constructs and connects its own nodes; in this case, it constructs an Sprintf node and connects the item-input node to it, and then constructs a Shell node and connects the Sprintf node to it, and then returns the Shell node as the item-output node. The two Shell node in this sub-graph emit a first value "1", which propagates to the item-collecting node and causes it to output a first value list("1", "1"). Then, the second Shell node emits a second value "2", which propagates to the item-collecting node and causes it to output a second value list("1", "2"), as desired. Here is how this commit brings us closer to the above plan: Changing FuncValue throughout the codebase is a big change. One of the difficulties is that it is not just nodes which are emitting FuncValues, there are also many other places in the code where FuncValue is used to hold a golang function from Value to Value. Some of those places now need to hold a golang function from Vertex to Vertex, but other places still need to hold a golang function from Vertex to Vertex. Thus, as a first step, we need to split FuncValue into two types. This commit splits the old FuncValue into two types: 1. The new FuncValue will hold a function from Vertex to Vertex. FuncValue is a Value. 2. A new type named "SimpleFn" will hold a function from Value to Value. SimpleFn is not a Value. This commit replaces occurrences of the old FuncValue with one of those two new types, as appropriate. This commit does not yet adapt the surrounding code to make use of the new representation; that will be done in future commits. I have annotated the missing parts with the following panic message in order to make it easy to find which parts still need to be implemented. The "..." part explains what needs to be implemented. panic("TODO [SimpleFn]: ..."); Here's where I need help: One part of the code which is not clear to me are the parts which use reflection. I don't understand the purpose of that code well enough to explain what needs to be implemented. I have annotated those "known unknown" parts of the remaining work with the following panic message in order to make it easy to find which parts still need more thinking and planning: panic("TODO [SimpleFn] [Reflect]: ..."); This is the commit message #2: lang: Add the core func graph Txn API This will eventually let functions change the running graph via a transaction API. At the moment the core Lock and Unlock primitives aren't implemented. This is the commit message #3: lang: A reversible wrapper around Txn This is useful for the common case in which we call one FuncValue to construct a bunch of nodes, and later we switch to a different FuncValue and so we want to remove all the nodes added by the first FuncValue and replace them by the nodes added by the second FuncValue. This is the commit message #4: lang: move FuncValue to its own package This is the commit message #5: lang: combine lang/func/structs and ast Merging those two packages allows us to avoid import cycles when a Func needs to add an Expr to the graph. This is the commit message #6: lang: CallExpr must generate a subgraph FuncValues are now manipulating the graph instead of manipulating values, so the logic for calling a FuncValue must now follow suit. This is the commit message #7: lang: ExprFunc does not need to store its value This is the commit message #8: spelling This is the commit message #9: convert between SimpleFn, FuncValue, and Func This is the commit message #10: no need for ExprCall.argVertices it's the exact same thing as ExprCall.Args This is the commit message #11: ExprFunc.Func()'s three cases This is the commit message #12: FunctionFunc is no longer used This is the commit message #13: ExprBool.MergedGraph() This is the commit message #14: ExprIf.MergedGraph() This is the commit message #15: ExprFunc.MergedGraph() This is the commit message #16: lang: ast, interfaces: Add MergedGraph signature and implementation This adds a MergedGraph signature to the Expr interface. The txn type is interface{} until we have that merged. This is the commit message #17: lang: ast, interfaces: Add MergedGraph signature and implementation This adds a MergedGraph signature to the Stmt interface. The txn type is interface{} until we have that merged. This is the commit message #18: Use MergedGraph signature and implementation This puts it into play, but doesn't initialize the input args at all. This is the commit message #19: Restore ExprBool.Graph() and Func() This reverts commit 3ea3845. This is the commit message #20: Restore ExprIf.Graph() This reverts commit a62889e. This is the commit message #21: restore ExprFunc::Graph() and Func() This is the commit message #22: fix type errors This is the commit message #23: ExprCall.MergedGraph() This is the commit message #24: a more precise type for args This is the commit message #25: GraphTxn This is the commit message #26: ReversibleTxn.AddGraph This is the commit message #27: ExprFunc.MergedGraph() This is the commit message #28: ExprVar.MergedGraph() This is the commit message #29: sub-graph is spelled subgraph in this codebase This is the commit message #30: ExprFunc.mkFunc() was unused This is the commit message #31: CallFunc.Stream() should add Funcs to the graph, not Exprs This is the commit message #32: move ConstFunc to lang.funcs This is the commit message #33: move conversion functions to lang.funcs.simple I wrote some conversion functions from SimpleFn to FuncValue to Func, and I want to call them from Func.Stream() implementations, so those conversion functions should be somewhere in lang.funcs. This is the commit message #34: it is the responsibility of the function engine to call Init on the nodes This is the commit message #35: FuncValue.Call() This is the commit message #36: drop MergedGraph's unused txn parameter This is the commit message #37: move CallFunc to funcs.simple This is the commit message #38: Func from channel This is the commit message #39: ChannelBased{Source,Sink}Func This is the commit message #40: MapFunc This is the commit message #41: remove unused CallFunc field This is the commit message #42: [REVERT ME] remove unrelated files to make VS Code happy This is the commit message #43: [REVERT ME] remove unrelated files to make VS Code happy This is the commit message #44: extend environment with StmtProg's local variables This is the commit message #45: delete unused VarFunc This is the commit message #46: appease govet This is the commit message #47: add imported variables to the environment This is the commit message #48: add builtins to the environment This is the commit message #49: accumulate all the imported variables previously, we were only keeping the imported variables from the last import statement. This is the commit message #50: XXX: wip new function engine This is the commit message #51: comments This is the commit message #52: remove Engine.{Lock,Unlock} placeholders This is the commit message #53: f(...) support for ExprCall This is the commit message #54: [REVERT ME] remove unrelated files to make VS Code happy This is the commit message #55: don't recreate the subgraphInput This is the commit message #56: CallFunc now takes a single input, the FuncValue Also, by using the map_func logic, CallFunc now detects when it can no longer emits new values downstream. This is the commit message #57: GraphTxn must take a pointer in order to modify the graph This is the commit message #58: GraphTxn is unused

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Declarative DSL #2

Declarative DSL #2

nwmcsween commented Jan 22, 2016

josephholsten commented Feb 1, 2016

purpleidea commented Feb 1, 2016

nwmcsween commented Feb 1, 2016

purpleidea commented Feb 1, 2016

dalen commented Feb 1, 2016

purpleidea commented Feb 1, 2016

purpleidea commented Feb 1, 2016

josephholsten commented Feb 2, 2016

josephholsten commented Feb 2, 2016

nwmcsween commented Feb 2, 2016

cavaliercoder commented Apr 1, 2016

purpleidea commented Apr 1, 2016

vincentbernat commented Jul 7, 2016

purpleidea commented Jul 7, 2016 •

edited

vincentbernat commented Jul 7, 2016

purpleidea commented Jul 7, 2016

vincentbernat commented Jul 7, 2016

nwmcsween commented Jul 7, 2016

dnaeon commented Jul 12, 2016 •

edited

purpleidea commented Jul 12, 2016

dnaeon commented Jul 12, 2016

purpleidea commented Jul 13, 2016

neilhwatson commented Jul 27, 2016

purpleidea commented Jul 27, 2016

shawncatz commented Aug 22, 2016

josephholsten commented Aug 22, 2016

purpleidea commented Aug 22, 2016

josephholsten commented Aug 22, 2016

purpleidea commented Oct 7, 2016

dnaeon commented Oct 11, 2016

Declarative DSL #2

Declarative DSL #2

Comments

nwmcsween commented Jan 22, 2016

josephholsten commented Feb 1, 2016

purpleidea commented Feb 1, 2016

nwmcsween commented Feb 1, 2016

purpleidea commented Feb 1, 2016

dalen commented Feb 1, 2016

purpleidea commented Feb 1, 2016

purpleidea commented Feb 1, 2016

josephholsten commented Feb 2, 2016

josephholsten commented Feb 2, 2016

nwmcsween commented Feb 2, 2016

cavaliercoder commented Apr 1, 2016

purpleidea commented Apr 1, 2016

vincentbernat commented Jul 7, 2016

purpleidea commented Jul 7, 2016 • edited

vincentbernat commented Jul 7, 2016

purpleidea commented Jul 7, 2016

vincentbernat commented Jul 7, 2016

nwmcsween commented Jul 7, 2016

dnaeon commented Jul 12, 2016 • edited

purpleidea commented Jul 12, 2016

dnaeon commented Jul 12, 2016

purpleidea commented Jul 13, 2016

neilhwatson commented Jul 27, 2016

purpleidea commented Jul 27, 2016

shawncatz commented Aug 22, 2016

josephholsten commented Aug 22, 2016

purpleidea commented Aug 22, 2016

josephholsten commented Aug 22, 2016

purpleidea commented Oct 7, 2016

dnaeon commented Oct 11, 2016

purpleidea commented Jul 7, 2016 •

edited

dnaeon commented Jul 12, 2016 •

edited