I understand: I am not expecting ASDF to understand any three part version in my case.
I'd wager that most cases are covered by the 8-digit timestamp scheme. All the best Marco On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 5:57 PM Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> wrote: > 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 <rpgold...@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 > > -- 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