Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn <[email protected]> writes: > So far so good. Now, should the "rational version number spec"
I would like to avoid this term, since version strings do not represent rational numbers (nor, indeed, should they be interpreted as any kind of single number). If we must have a name for it, I propose “consistent version comparison spec” as less confusing than the above term. > *also* encourage those of us who use this technique to use the same > spelling for ".snapshot" / "-r" / ".post"? This is where I don't think the specification should express an opinion. Keep it simple and declarative. > This would not effect any version comparison, but it would be nice for > us humans if everyone chose the same word when they mean the same > thing. It might be nice, but it's not necessary to the specification since version comparison only needs to be consistent within versions of *the same thing*, so for the sake of specification it doesn't matter if different projects choose different tokens. The specification should provide *examples*, and make those examples sensible; but don't favour anything that's not meant to be normative. -- \ “I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at | `\ the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour …” —F. H. Wales, 1936 | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
