On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 06:58:42AM -0700, John Peacock wrote:
> For bleadperl, I believe Nicolas would like this to be the case:
Yes, by 5.12, yes, this behaviour, for the reasons that David has described.
> $any1 = v34.23.45; # silent
> $any2 = 45.32.57; # warn(v-string without leading 'v' depr
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 06:58:42AM -0700, John Peacock wrote:
> On 7/25/09 1:52 AM, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>> In general we try strongly to avoid making code that works suddenly start
>> emitting warnings under later releases of the same maintenance branch.
>>
>> However, I don't understand what the
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 11:05 AM, John
Peacock wrote:
> Using bare v-strings (as opposed to quoted strings) is fraught with
> inconsistencies between various versions of Perl. version.pm generally
The other issue is that it's easy for people to misuse by mistake.
E.g.
# In Foo.pm
our $VERSION =
On 7/25/09 7:43 AM, Dave Mitchell wrote:
You didn't answer this question. I am generally ignorant of the specifics
of version and version strings. I don't understand in general why bare
1.2.3 strings are deprecated (I'm sure there's a good reason for it, I'm
just not familiar with it). And in par
On 7/25/09 1:52 AM, Dave Mitchell wrote:
In general we try strongly to avoid making code that works suddenly start
emitting warnings under later releases of the same maintenance branch.
However, I don't understand what the particular issue of using v-strings
to initialize version objects is?
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:50:28PM -0700, John Peacock wrote:
> On 7/24/09 7:34 PM, David Golden wrote:
>> Yes. I think so.
>>
>> A syntax deprecation like that shouldn't happen as part a maintenance branch.
>>
>> It should be deprecated in 5.12 and removed in 5.14.
>>
>> So version.pm should not
On 7/24/09 7:34 PM, David Golden wrote:
Yes. I think so.
A syntax deprecation like that shouldn't happen as part a maintenance branch.
It should be deprecated in 5.12 and removed in 5.14.
So version.pm should not warn until perl does. That's not my ideal
outcome, since I'm a big supporter of
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 9:36 PM, John
Peacock wrote:
> HOWEVER, based on a discussion started on p5p by Nicolas, I enabled a
> warning if you try and use a v-string without the leading 'v' as a version
> object initialization. This is a change in behavior [that I think is long
> overdue] that clar
David Golden wrote:
C.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_2145
Instant joke: iso-two-one-four-five.
--
Ruud
I find all three equally cringe'worthy (those two AND the original use
version ...)
Adam K
2009/7/16 Gisle Aas :
> On Jul 15, 2009, at 23:36 , David Golden wrote:
>
>>
>>> Seems like a good reason now to do this then. Perhaps it's better to
>>> write:
>>>
>>> our $VERSION = version->declare("v1
On Jul 16, 2009, at 1:06 , John Peacock wrote:
Gisle Aas wrote:
I think the term "dotted-decimal" is pretty confusing, especially
when
what you contrast that with is "decimal version numbers" (which
includes
a dot). I suggest you call it "integers separated by dots" or
"dotted-integers" fo
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM, demerphq wrote:
> There is something disturbing around the fact that we are hacking
> around a one line code parser here.
+1
We need 5.10.1 and configure_requires support to start the slow
process of getting us out of this box.
I still hope for "package Foo::Bar
2009/7/15 David Golden :
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Gisle Aas wrote:
>> We obviously disagree about what makes code readable.
>
> Let me rephrase -- I think putting "use version" last means it's more
> likely that someone will inadvertently leave it off. Putting it first
> indicates that i
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 07:23:28AM -0400, John Peacock wrote:
> I'm still undecided on "dotted-decimal" versus "dotted-integer" however...
+1 for "dotted-integer".
Marvin Humphrey
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:23 AM, John
Peacock wrote:
> Applied to the repo with minor tweakage and wiki page updated as well. I
> agree
> with Gisle that it would be good to define the terms "decimal" and
> "dotted-decimal" before using them, so I moved that section up. I'm still
> undecided on
David Golden wrote:
> A copy of my edits is attached and I've put a copy on the QA Wiki:
>
> http://perl-qa.hexten.net/wiki/index.php/Version_POD
Applied to the repo with minor tweakage and wiki page updated as well. I agree
with Gisle that it would be good to define the terms "decimal" and
"dot
David Golden wrote:
> Or we could call them ISO 2145 versions
>
> C.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_2145
Yeah, that just rolls off the tongue... ;-)
> But for what it's worth, perl56delta describes the new version
> numbering scheme as "dotted integer".
Well, that is another argument for
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:12 AM, Gisle Aas wrote:
> But "dotted-decimal" is just wrong. If I take the decimal "1.04" and the
> decimal "1.10" and dot them I get "1.04.1.10" and that's not what you meant.
dotted-integer is technically wrong, too, since we're really talking
dotted-non-negative-inte
On Jul 15, 2009, at 20:08 , David Golden wrote:
A copy of my edits is attached and I've put a copy on the QA Wiki:
http://perl-qa.hexten.net/wiki/index.php/Version_POD
I think the term "dotted-decimal" is pretty confusing, especially when
what you contrast that with is "decimal version numb
On Jul 15, 2009, at 23:36 , David Golden wrote:
Seems like a good reason now to do this then. Perhaps it's better
to write:
our $VERSION = version->declare("v1.2.3"); use version 1.00;
Yes, that "works" but I think it's horrible for readability.
The suggestion was meant to improve
On Jul 15, 2009, at 22:49 , John Peacock wrote:
Gisle Aas wrote:
I would suggest that you bump the version number of version to 1.00
so that becomes the recommended minimal number instead of an
arbitrary number like 0.77; making the recommended invocation:
use version 1.00; $our $VERSION
I would suggest that you bump the version number of version to 1.00 so
that becomes the recommended minimal number instead of an arbitrary
number like 0.77; making the recommended invocation:
use version 1.00; $our $VERSION = qw("v1.2.3");
This still confuses me as I think that:
use
# from David Golden
# on Wednesday 15 July 2009 14:53:
>> our $VERSION = do { use version 1.00; version->declare("v1.2.3")
>> };
>
>I almost hate to say it, but I actually kind of like that. It's
>really, really clear in the intent.
I'm going to keep doing what I've been doing:
our $VERSION
Gisle Aas wrote:
> I think the term "dotted-decimal" is pretty confusing, especially when
> what you contrast that with is "decimal version numbers" (which includes
> a dot). I suggest you call it "integers separated by dots" or
> "dotted-integers" for short.
They used to be fevered to as "numeri
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Gisle Aas wrote:
> We obviously disagree about what makes code readable.
Let me rephrase -- I think putting "use version" last means it's more
likely that someone will inadvertently leave it off. Putting it first
indicates that it's an important precursor, which i
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Gisle Aas wrote:
> I think the term "dotted-decimal" is pretty confusing, especially when what
> you contrast that with is "decimal version numbers" (which includes a dot).
> I suggest you call it "integers separated by dots" or "dotted-integers" for
> short.
+1 f
>>> I would suggest that you bump the version number of version to 1.00 so that
>>> becomes the recommended minimal number instead of an arbitrary number like
>>> 0.77; making the recommended invocation:
>>> use version 1.00; $our $VERSION = qw("v1.2.3");
+1 on version bump since the API is ch
Gisle Aas wrote:
I would suggest that you bump the version number of version to 1.00 so
that becomes the recommended minimal number instead of an arbitrary
number like 0.77; making the recommended invocation:
use version 1.00; $our $VERSION = qw("v1.2.3");
You do know that the above does
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:13 AM, David Golden wrote:
>
> Easiest is just to park it on the QA wiki, I think. Maybe hang it off the
> toolchain roadmap page?
>
A copy of my edits is attached and I've put a copy on the QA Wiki:
http://perl-qa.hexten.net/wiki/index.php/Version_POD
My goal with
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:05 AM, John Peacock <
john.peac...@havurah-software.org> wrote:
> David Golden wrote:
>
>> I'll take a cut later today and you can incorporate it directly into a
>> 0.76_04 release or put it on a wiki (e.g., the QA wiki). I do tend to think
>> you'll get better quality
David Golden wrote:
I'll take a cut later today and you can incorporate it directly into a
0.76_04 release or put it on a wiki (e.g., the QA wiki). I do tend to
think you'll get better quality edits via a wiki.
I don't have a wiki anywhere that I could use for this (which is why I
suggested
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:21 AM, John Peacock <
john.peac...@havurah-software.org> wrote:
> > Short of handing out commit bits, would it make sense to throw them on a
> > wiki page somewhere and let people iterate?
>
> How about I push out 0.76_04 and we use the annotate pages on annoCPAN?
>
> htt
> Short of handing out commit bits, would it make sense to throw them on a
> wiki page somewhere and let people iterate?
How about I push out 0.76_04 and we use the annotate pages on annoCPAN?
http://www.annocpan.org/~JPEACOCK/version-0.76_03/lib/version.pod
http://www.annocpan.org/~JPEACOCK/vers
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:15 AM, John Peacock <
john.peac...@havurah-software.org> wrote:
> If you want to help, the files are here:
>
> https://svn.perl.org/modules/version/trunk/lib/version.pod
>
> and
>
> https://svn.perl.org/modules/version/trunk/lib/version/Internals.pod
>
> or you can just
34 matches
Mail list logo
