On 5/8/24 18:49, Miller Puckette wrote:
I couldn't immediately figure out how to fix the ugly Makefile.am stuff, and anyway the whole thing feels fragile to me. What if we change PD_VERSION_CODE to PD_CODE_VERSION ? Will that cause anyone trouble?
i see you renamed the define.however, the recent changes accepted by you already fixed the parsing issues we were having, so the version in 1.introduction.txt was replaced correctly.
all in all i do not see a reason to use PD_VERSION_{MAJOR,MINOR,BUGFIX} on one hand, and on the other PD_CODE_VERSION version.
the meaning of PD_VERSION_CODE is really "a single code(number) expression the (entire) version of Pd", and belongs into the same family as PD_VERSION_MAJOR ("a single (code)number expression the major version of Pd"). having PD_VERSION_MAJOR and PD_CODE_VERSION adds additional mental load that i would rather avoid.
I now see that the correct action from me (and dan) would have been to both object the rename and propose a fix. rather than just propose a fix (and assume that this would obsolete the rename).
sorry for the inconvenience. gfdmsar IOhannes
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
