Christian wrote:
> On Do, 13 Jun 2019, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> > We could add v:longversion or v:versionlong, with:
> >
> > major version (one digit)
> > minor version (two digits)
> > patchlevel (four digits)
>
> We already have v:version
>
> Why not just add a simple v:patchlevel which contains the last patch
> included?
Because then you need a more complicated condition:
if v:version > 801 || (v:version == 801 && v:patchlevel > 1234)
This is a lot simpler:
if v:versionlong > 8011234
> I am not sure if we actually need this, considering that there exist Vim
> version, that leave out just a single patch in between, so even when
> checking for the existence of 8.1.1152, that does not mean that the Vim
> used does support all the features that have been added in the previous
> 1151 patches.
>
> I think a better way is to check for the existence of the feature to be
> used using has()/exists(), etc.
Yes, that is the safe way. But Paul made a point for what he wanted,
and it's a very small change.
--
Living in Hollywood is like living in a bowl of granola. What ain't
fruits and nuts is flakes.
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/201906141027.x5EARkvw016024%40masaka.moolenaar.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
