This may be useful as an addition to a general version number
comparison, but for Emacs version numbers, I think we should DTRT based
on the shorter of the two arguments:
(version= "22" "22.0.50.37") => t
Actually, version= was not supposed to be installed at all. It isn't
nece
On 8/27/05, Vinicius Jose Latorre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, folks, should I remove all version string comparison stuff from subr.el?
I just wondered. Shouldn't we all, at this point, for every new feature?
--
/L/e/k/t/u
__
In the past we've had threads just to decide whether to add or change
tiny things
Some of those discussions about tiny things are necessary and useful,
but sometimes I think they are unnecessary--and they take time. I
decided to avoid a discussion for this point because I did not see
a ne
Ok, folks, should I remove all version string comparison stuff from subr.el?
Juanma Barranquero wrote:
On 8/26/05, Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How often does that happen?
And for those rare cases where some piece of elisp code uses a version
comparison, how many of those could
On 8/26/05, Jason Rumney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed. In this case, that discussion took place in May 2003.
Hardly strange, then, that I didn't know or remembered about it, don't
you think? ,-)
--
/L/e/k/t/u
___
Emacs-dev
On 8/26/05, Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How often does that happen?
> And for those rare cases where some piece of elisp code uses a version
> comparison, how many of those could advantageously use
> a feature-test instead? I thought we'd discussed and rejected such version
> comp
> version< is useful for comparing version number strings.
How often does that happen?
And for those rare cases where some piece of elisp code uses a version
comparison, how many of those could advantageously use
a feature-test instead? I thought we'd discussed and rejected such version
compariso
Jason Rumney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kim F. Storm wrote:
>
>>..but now that it has happened, I think it makes sense for these
>>functions to accept an optional argument to limit the number of
>>version string elements to compare. E.g.
>>
>> (version= "22.0.50" "22.0.50.37")=> nil
Jason Rumney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kim F. Storm wrote:
>
>>..but now that it has happened, I think it makes sense for these
>>functions to accept an optional argument to limit the number of
>>version string elements to compare. E.g.
>>
>> (version= "22.0.50" "22.0.50.37")=> nil
"Richard M. Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> version< is useful for comparing version number strings.
I doubt it is very useful without any mentioning in NEWS or
the lispref...
--
Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cua.dk
___
Emacs-
Kim F. Storm wrote:
..but now that it has happened, I think it makes sense for these
functions to accept an optional argument to limit the number of
version string elements to compare. E.g.
(version= "22.0.50" "22.0.50.37")=> nil
(version= "22.0.50.36" "22.0.50.37") => nil
Juanma Barranquero wrote:
In the past we've had threads just to decide whether to add or change
tiny things
Indeed. In this case, that discussion took place in May 2003.
___
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
Juanma Barranquero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> version< is useful for comparing version number strings.
> So I suppose I'm just a bit surprised at the thought of adding two
> variables, seven functions and one alias just to do version
> comparison. Not even the `integer-list-*' functions are g
On 8/26/05, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> version< is useful for comparing version number strings.
In the past we've had threads just to decide whether to add or change
tiny things (I fondly remember discussing whether the four or five
different implementations of `time-less-p'
version< is useful for comparing version number strings.
I told Vinicius he could install it.
___
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
15 matches
Mail list logo
