The question is the same I asked when you introduced them :): Why are symbolic versions treated differently from normal ones?
This has two dimensions: - why have a different pragma at all? - why have the distinction between symbols and versions, given that there will never be a regular version named 'stable'? Cheers, Doru On 21 Nov 2012, at 19:27, Dale Henrichs <[email protected]> wrote: > Stef, > > I'm not sure which context you are talking about ... the symbolic version > #stable can be used as an argument anywhere that the linear version '1.1' can > be used, so I think that it is true that symbolic versions can be used in a > #version: message ... > > So I guess I need a little more context ... > > Dale > > ----- Original Message ----- > | From: "Stéphane Ducasse" <[email protected]> > | To: "Pharo Development" <[email protected]> > | Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 2:19:02 PM > | Subject: [Pharo-project] Metacello Why symbolicversion and not simply > tagged version:? > | > | Dale > | > | in my goal to reduce the complexity of metacello, I'm wondering why > | symbolic versions could not be expressed as version: > | > | because > | > | version: #stable > | version: #development > | > | are symbolic versions and there is no clash possible with > | > | version: '1.1' > | > | Stef > | > | > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Things happen when they happen, not when you talk about them happening."
