Next steps

[Robert Goldman]

What I meant is that ASDF does not "understand" that 20201015 is a 
three-part version, whose first part is "2020" second is "10" and third 
is "15".

So note that my example is "any version since October 2020." And yours 
is "any version since October *fifteenth* 2020.


On 18 Nov 2021, at 10:53, Marco Antoniotti wrote:

> 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/bdde43b4/attachment-0001.html>