Open Stack

On Nov 14, 2016, at 6:04 AM, milanisko k <vetrisko at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like to ask about possible ``=in:``[1] operator negation implementation 
> Should the implementation be a negative field name such as ``?state=in:a,b,c&not_state=in:x,y,z``?
> Or rather a negated operator: ``?state=in:a,b,c&state=not_in:x,y,z``?
> There already is the ``=neq:`` operator specified in the filtering spec[1], so I guess ``=not_in:/=nin:/=out:`` might be more appropriate?

The latter looks better to me. I’d like to get feedback on the exact choice of ``=not_in:/=nin:/=out:`` to recommend. Personally, I prefer ‘nin’, but I’ll defer to others on that.

-- Ed Leafe