On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Adam Kennedy
wrote:
> 2009/4/23 Ken Williams :
>> +1 for Schwern here. Dotted tuples, away with the silly
>> you-must-always-use-3-digits rule.
>
> What are your plans for $], and all the code everywhere that does stuff with
> it.
The semantics for turning $] i
Adam Kennedy wrote:
> 2009/4/23 Ken Williams :
>> +1 for Schwern here. Dotted tuples, away with the silly
>> you-must-always-use-3-digits rule.
>
> What are your plans for $], and all the code everywhere that does stuff with
> it.
I'm perfectly happy with $]. One of the few perl version indica
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Andreas J. Koenig
wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:38:18 -0700, Michael G Schwern
>> said:
>
> > 1.06 -> 1.60.0 does not DWIM. There's no feedback about it until the
> module
> > has already been uploaded to PAUSE and then a few weeks later someone
2009/4/23 Ken Williams :
> +1 for Schwern here. Dotted tuples, away with the silly
> you-must-always-use-3-digits rule.
What are your plans for $], and all the code everywhere that does stuff with it.
Adam K
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:38:18 -0700, Michael G Schwern
> said:
> 1.06 -> 1.60.0 does not DWIM. There's no feedback about it until the module
> has already been uploaded to PAUSE and then a few weeks later someone points
> out the mistake. A warning by the PAUSE indexer would hel
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Adam Kennedy wrote:
>> 2009/4/21 Michael G Schwern :
>>> I was almost convinced, then I remembered what caused this whole problem.
>>> Class::Delegation went from 1.06 to 1.7.1. That's 1.60.0 to 1.7.1 in your
>>> system.
>>
>> Of course
# from David E. Wheeler
# on Wednesday 22 April 2009 14:04:
>> It should have been 1.0.6. Just adding a dot at every digit would
>> actually have been somewhat obvious.
>
>Yes, but look at this:
>
> 1.9 => 1.9.0
> 1.10 => 1.1.0
>
>Doesn't really do the trick.
What? Why not? What compa
On Apr 22, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
# from Michael G Schwern
# on Wednesday 22 April 2009 13:38:
Class::Delegation went from 1.06 to 1.7.1. That's 1.60.0 to 1.7.1
Of course that's what it means. The fact you don't have to type the
last zero is just a convenience...
Of course.
# from Michael G Schwern
# on Wednesday 22 April 2009 13:38:
>>> Class::Delegation went from 1.06 to 1.7.1. That's 1.60.0 to 1.7.1
>> Of course that's what it means. The fact you don't have to type the
>> last zero is just a convenience...
>
>Of course.
>
>Of course, it could be 1.6.0. Or 1.60.0
Adam Kennedy wrote:
> 2009/4/21 Michael G Schwern :
>> I was almost convinced, then I remembered what caused this whole problem.
>> Class::Delegation went from 1.06 to 1.7.1. That's 1.60.0 to 1.7.1 in your
>> system.
>
> Of course that's what it means. The fact you don't have to type the
> last z
2009/4/21 Michael G Schwern :
> I was almost convinced, then I remembered what caused this whole problem.
> Class::Delegation went from 1.06 to 1.7.1. That's 1.60.0 to 1.7.1 in your
> system.
Of course that's what it means. The fact you don't have to type the
last zero is just a convenience...
A
2009/4/21 Michael G Schwern :
> X.Y.Z is always a tuple. It's obviously not a number. What else could it be?
> It does not need a leading v.
>
> Same goes for X.Y.Z.A and so forth. So they don't need any disambiguation.
It only doesn't need disambiguation if you are able to intuit it.
We're w
# from David Golden
# on Monday 20 April 2009 14:29:
>(a) how someone should convert from a numeric versions to vX.Y.Z
>without screwing up their ascending sequence
perl -Mversion -E 'say version->new("1.13")->normal'
>(b) how to compare vX.Y.Z to a legacy X.YYZZ
You mean X.YYY.Z -- it's alwa
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Do not extend the _Z convention into version.pm.
Too late. It's there. qv("1.2_3") -> v1.2_3
I wish it wasn't that way, but it is. Thus, my suggestion that "v"
always indicate a tuple.
> The state of a release does
> not belong in
# from David E. Wheeler
# on Monday 20 April 2009 14:12:
>> Sure, you can't just treat a float as a tuple without fixing the
>> width of the second column. I imagine this is where everybody gets
>> confused and I think all we need to do is explain that.
>>
>> X convert to vX
>> X.Y
# from Michael G Schwern
# on Monday 20 April 2009 13:05:
>> Sure, you can't just treat a float as a tuple without fixing the
>> width of the second column. I imagine this is where everybody gets
>> confused and I think all we need to do is explain that.
>>
>> X convert to vX
>> X.Y
On Apr 20, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
Sure, you can't just treat a float as a tuple without fixing the width
of the second column. I imagine this is where everybody gets confused
and I think all we need to do is explain that.
Xconvert to vX
X.Y convert to vX.Y00
X.YY
David Golden wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>> And that's that. Have version.pm *always* output at least X.Y.Z. X.Y
>> becomes
>> X.Y.0 or is simply disallowed. Then there's no confusion and no special vX.Y
>> format.
>
> The problem I could see is what to
Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>> Here is a portion of my CPAN directory:
>> ...
>
> 0.0905 -> v0.90.5
> 0.0906 -> v0.90.6
> 0.0907 -> v0.90.7
> 0.0908 -> v0.90.8
> 0.0909 -> v0.90.9
> 0.091 -> v0.91.0
> 0.0911 -> v0.91.1
>
>> The $VERSION's listed above only make sense if you compare them a
# from John Peacock
# on Monday 20 April 2009 04:16:
>> All of the trouble we've ever had is just that X.Y happens to look
>> like some kind of a number and like a dotted 2-tuple. But instead
>> of perl version 5.564.0 or 6.0.x, it was 5.5.640.
>
>X.Y is a [floating point] number and is in fact d
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> And that's that. Have version.pm *always* output at least X.Y.Z. X.Y becomes
> X.Y.0 or is simply disallowed. Then there's no confusion and no special vX.Y
> format.
The problem I could see is what to do with alpha versions (an arguab
Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> Actually, I think it's:
>
> X sort as a dotted tuple
> X.Y sort as a dotted tuple
> X.Y.Z sort as a dotted tuple
> X.Y.Z.A sort as a dotted tuple
>
> All of the trouble we've ever had is just that X.Y happens to look like
> some kind of a number and like
# from Michael G Schwern
# on Sunday 19 April 2009 13:42:
>X sort as a number
>X.Y sort as a number
>X.Y.Z sort as dotted tuple (allowing X.Y.Z.A.B... if you like)
>
>And that's that. Have version.pm *always* output at least X.Y.Z. X.Y
> becomes X.Y.0 or is simply disallowed. Then t
# from Michael G Schwern
# on Sunday 19 April 2009 13:42:
>1.234 <=> 1.2.3 becomes 1.234.0 <=> 1.2.3 which is >
What about 1.2345? IME, main trouble with mixing is that there's a
3-digit padding convention (required for compatibility with some
ancient perl?)
--Eric
--
"It works better if you
24 matches
Mail list logo
