On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 02:46:01PM -0700, Dan Price wrote: > > version.py: > > > > - line 152: do you want to do any further semantic checking on the > > string? That is, months can't be greater than 12, etc? > > Sigh, that's a big problem. My concern is that it's going to be rather > expensive for all the checks we'll need to do. It may be that it winds > up being worth storing the timestamp as an integer, since we'll need to > pay the price to convert to ints during the validity checking.
Yup. And conversion from integer to string isn't (or shouldn't be) that expensive. > As an aside, this led me to discover that we blow up in an ugly way > today if you try to do e.g.: > > pkg info pkg:/[EMAIL PROTECTED],5.11-0.91:20080613T999999Z > ^^^^^^^ Ooh, yeah, yuck. > My code has the lucky side effect of letting us fail more gracefully, > but the cost is an overall decrease in safety. Thoughts? I'd lean towards just doing the safe thing, even though there aren't a whole lot of normal paths to get it wrong. > > - line 263: What's magic about this? I don't entirely understand why > > build_release is looked at here but not in __lt__ or __gt__, but that's > > not magic, per se.> > > I guess my point was: does anyone understand why build_release is referenced > here? I was not intending to check in the XXX, but rather to flag something > strange. I think you can get rid of the build_release reference here, since we're pretty much not using it anywhere, and it doesn't really make much sense to have it here and not in __gt__ and __lt__. We can put it in again if it turns out to be necessary. Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
