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 <rpgold...@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 <rpgold...@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
