John Peacock wrote:
David Golden wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Adam Kennedy
<adamkennedybac...@gmail.com> wrote:
A more interesting question then becomes, does anyone on the CPAN have
a tuple with an element higher than 999.
I did another run with zeros vs 1-9, too:
http://echo.dagolden.com/~xdg/format-analysis-zeros.txt
Ah, I see I should have read the rest of the messages; I shouldn't let Schwern
goad me. I'll look at this list in detail later; I have to call an animal
control company about something scrabbling in the walls of my house... :(
John
[apologies to John Peacock, who accidentally got his own personal copy]
The tuples! The tuples are in the walls!
I wonder if we can separate issues with regard to the uses of VERSION?
As I see it (and someone may have beaten me to this on another message,
apologies if so), we should be aiming for:
1) there is one, and only one, format for a version number in META.yml.
This way we have a mechanism that won't make the non-perl world cry.
2) CPAN packages are named using that number in META.yml. See above.
3) conversion between the source code's version number format and
META.yml's
format is where all the arguing goes for the perl users. I'm not being
flippant here,
it's an important question. For example, Eric Wilhem's "it's obvious"
conversion of a floating point version to tuple wasn't obvious to me,
because that's not how I do it in my own mind. To me, an X.YY version
number goes to X.YY.00, and that's how I've been numbering them.
No, I didn't check with version.pm beforehand. I didn't know that I needed
to, and I'll bet that I'm not alone in this.
Anyway, are 1) and 2) reasonable goals? It would at least spare the
outside world the intricacies of the inner world of perl.
-john
