Why would ASDF not understand "version later than 20201015"? I am perfectly fine with using the full 8 digit timestamp.
MA On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 4:24 PM Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> wrote: > On 18 Nov 2021, at 7:35, Eric Timmons wrote: > > > On 11/18/21 3:45 AM, Marco Antoniotti wrote: > >> Sorry but I am missing something. > >> > >> It was said in this thread (don't remember who, apologies) that > >> > >> YYYYMMDD > >> > >> would work. Will it? > > > > Yes. YYYYMMDD is currently a valid version string (assuming it's all > > digits). Whatever we choose will allow a superset of what's already > > allowed. > > > > -Eric > > That's true, but possibly stating the obvious: ASDF does not > "understand" a version string like that. So you can't say "any version > since October 2020 will work." Getting something like that to work would > be an exercise for the extension protocol. > > This actually might make a good test case for us to see if the proposed > protocol (versioning method keyword initarg for defsystem) makes sense. > > R > -- Marco Antoniotti, Professor tel. +39 - 02 64 48 79 01 DISCo, Università Milano Bicocca U14 2043 http://dcb.disco.unimib.it Viale Sarca 336 I-20126 Milan (MI) ITALY
