Next steps

[Marco Antoniotti]

I decided to switch to version numbers that are dates in YYYYMMDD format.

Looks like it would still work.

Marco

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:19 PM Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:

> Not sure what the syntax is, but I agree that holding to a fixed number of
> arguments will be best, particularly for filtering out syntax errors.
>
> On 17 Nov 2021, at 11:51, phoebe Goldman wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:37 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
>
> version constraints like (:version "my-unstable-library" < 3) or
> something like that *will* go in to ASDF.
>
>
> Might I suggest the syntax:
>
> (:version "my-lib" (:min "2")) ; equiv to (:version "my-lib" "3")
> (:version "my-lib" (:below "3")) ; not :MAX, because this is an exclusive
> bound
> (:version "my-lib" (:range "2" "3")) ; inclusive lower, exclusive upper
> bound
>
> I believe it is both useful and aesthetically pleasing to keep the
> :version form to exactly three elements.
>
> cheers,
> phoebe
>
>

-- 
Marco Antoniotti, Professor            tel. +39 - 02 64 48 79 01
DISCo, Università Milano Bicocca U14 2043    http://dcb.disco.unimib.it
Viale Sarca 336
I-20126 Milan (MI) ITALY
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20211117/3aed20b3/attachment.html>