On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Marcus Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > * 1.7.1 matches >1.7 (previously it did not) >> >> This sounds like a straight up bug fix in the packaging module to me - the >> PEP 440 zero padding should apply to *all* checks, not just to equality >> checks, as you can't sensibly compare release segments with different >> numbers of elements. > > OK. to be clear, I guess you really didn't follow the previous thread? > I specifically raised the concern over 1.7.1 not matching >1.7 (in the > current implementation), but most people were arguing it was a logical > interpretation of PEP440.
I think Nick's e-mail clarifies it for me. In my e-mail, I was reconciling the current behavior with the current wording of the PEP, which says, "Exclusive ordered comparisons are similar to inclusive ordered comparisons, except that the comparison operators are < and > and the clause MUST be effectively interpreted as implying the prefix based version exclusion clause != V.*." I now see that the wording is a bit ambiguous (or at least that I was misinterpreting it). I interpreted it to mean that prefix-based version exclusion should be used *instead* of zero-padding, whereas with Nick's e-mail, I see that the meaning is that prefix-based exclusion should be used *after* applying zero padding. The clarified interpretation also addresses an asymmetry of the previously mentioned (and now apparently incorrect) "series" interpretation, which I'm not sure was mentioned before. Namely, 1.7.2 satisfies ">=1.7" but does not satisfy "<=1.7". With the series interpretation, the latter wouldn't be consistent (since 1.7.2 is part of the series under that interpretation). --Chris > > Marcus > > > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig > _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
