ASDF and versioning [was Re: Next steps]

[Robert Goldman]

That will work with the existing version comparison functions, yes, 
because it is still based on "string-encoding-of-number" comparison.


On 17 Nov 2021, at 12:34, Marco Antoniotti wrote:

> 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/20211117/49b0b601/attachment.html>