2009/4/22 David Golden <da...@hyperbolic.net>: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Adam Kennedy > <adamkennedybac...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2009/4/21 David Golden <da...@hyperbolic.net>: >>> Any version that does not appear in the form of type (a) or type (b) >>> is considered invalid. The behavior of modules encountering invalid >>> versions is undefined. >> >> Well that's not particularly helpful. > > I don't want to define heuristics in the recommendation. > >> Also, why exclude v1.23 useful as a tuple...? > > Belt and suspenders. It might be mistaken for a number. Written as > "v1.23.0" it's more obvious that it's a version tuple. And if someone > leaves off or strips the "v" for some reason, it's still clearly a > tuple and a liberal parser can deal with it without heuristics.
It's got a v... it's a tuple by definition, whether it's got one element or 10. We don't need to pussyfoot around with any of this "what if the v accidentally falls off the number because a while loop was rotating too fast". We define the specification with clarity in mind. If someone screws up, it's their fault and temporary. We don't compromise the standard to compensate for potential future bugs. Adam K
