Thanks, Eli. (I agree that version->integer's current behavior is the right one.)
Robby On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote: > Two hours ago, Robby Findler wrote: >> I looked at this a little bit and it appears to be a bug in >> version/utils, specifically the version->integer function is not >> working correctly for the release version number. > > Sorry, I forgot to push a version fix on the release branch -- done > now. But note that there are some other issues with the release > branch at the moment. > > > As for `version->integer' it's working as it should -- returning #f on > an invalid version instead of throwing an error. The problem is that > the previous version on the release branch was broken: it was > "5.2.900.0", and the version specs for X.Y.Z.W versions is W != 0. > > Maybe `version->integer' should have thrown an error instead, but it > seems risky to change that behavior now. On the other hand, it seems > reasonable to assume in code that (version->integer (version)) never > returns #f, since the currently running racket is assumed to be fine. > So I don't think that anything should be done (at least on the short > term). > > There is a safety check though in the build script that verifies that > the version is valid which should detect such problems early, but the > release branch build failed for a different reason, and failed earlier > than that check. (Just in case, I verified now that it would have > killed the build with an error.) > > -- > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
