Next steps

[Marco Antoniotti]

Why would ASDF not understand "version later than 20201015"?  I am
perfectly fine with using the full 8 digit timestamp.

MA

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 4:24 PM Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:

> On 18 Nov 2021, at 7:35, Eric Timmons wrote:
>
> > On 11/18/21 3:45 AM, Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> >> Sorry but I am missing something.
> >>
> >> It was said in this thread (don't remember who, apologies) that
> >>
> >> YYYYMMDD
> >>
> >> would work.  Will it?
> >
> > Yes. YYYYMMDD is currently a valid version string (assuming it's all
> > digits). Whatever we choose will allow a superset of what's already
> > allowed.
> >
> > -Eric
>
> That's true, but possibly stating the obvious: ASDF does not
> "understand" a version string like that.  So you can't say "any version
> since October 2020 will work." Getting something like that to work would
> be an exercise for the extension protocol.
>
> This actually might make a good test case for us to see if the proposed
> protocol (versioning method keyword initarg for defsystem) makes sense.
>
> R
>


-- 
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/20211118/afa93178/attachment.html>