Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : > rw2010a - alpha, i.e. development version (previously rw2010dev) > : > rw2010b - beta version (previously rw2001beta) > : > rw2010f - final version (previously rw2010) > : > rw2010p - patched version (previously rw2010pat) > : > : That would work. Use the rename command, and you've got it. > : > > Renaming is not really workable if you are giving your scripts to others. > They won't want build scripts that rename their folders. ...... > Its really desirable to keep Windows batch scripts as simple as > possible and such a transformation is trickier than you might > think in the Windows batch language. > > I was hoping that the R team would consider a simplifying > change to make it easier to create build scripts. The least such > change that I can think of is to use alpha as a suffix in place of dev > and to use final to suffix unsuffixed versions. That would be enough to > allow them to sort in ascending order. > > This involves no coding at all for the R team. Just a decision > to regularize the naming.
In a word, no, we won't do that. I'd certainly veto it if it came to that. It is a bad idea to have scripts depending on sort order (and R core has learned the hard way that sort order depends on locale), and it is an even worse idea to modify development concepts to fit a specificic alphabetical order. Case in point: A development version is _not_ the same as an alpha version! -- O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3 c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45) 35327907 ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
