On Jul 15, 2009, at 22:49 , John Peacock wrote:
Gisle Aas wrote:
I would suggest that you bump the version number of version to 1.00
so that becomes the recommended minimal number instead of an
arbitrary number like 0.77; making the recommended invocation:
use version 1.00; $our $VERSION
On Jul 15, 2009, at 23:36 , David Golden wrote:
Seems like a good reason now to do this then. Perhaps it's better
to write:
our $VERSION = version->declare("v1.2.3"); use version 1.00;
Yes, that "works" but I think it's horrible for readability.
The suggestion was meant to improve
On Jul 15, 2009, at 20:08 , David Golden wrote:
A copy of my edits is attached and I've put a copy on the QA Wiki:
http://perl-qa.hexten.net/wiki/index.php/Version_POD
I think the term "dotted-decimal" is pretty confusing, especially when
what you contrast that with is "decimal version numb
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:12 AM, Gisle Aas wrote:
> But "dotted-decimal" is just wrong. If I take the decimal "1.04" and the
> decimal "1.10" and dot them I get "1.04.1.10" and that's not what you meant.
dotted-integer is technically wrong, too, since we're really talking
dotted-non-negative-inte
David Golden wrote:
> Or we could call them ISO 2145 versions
>
> C.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_2145
Yeah, that just rolls off the tongue... ;-)
> But for what it's worth, perl56delta describes the new version
> numbering scheme as "dotted integer".
Well, that is another argument for
David Golden wrote:
> A copy of my edits is attached and I've put a copy on the QA Wiki:
>
> http://perl-qa.hexten.net/wiki/index.php/Version_POD
Applied to the repo with minor tweakage and wiki page updated as well. I agree
with Gisle that it would be good to define the terms "decimal" and
"dot
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:23 AM, John
Peacock wrote:
> Applied to the repo with minor tweakage and wiki page updated as well. I
> agree
> with Gisle that it would be good to define the terms "decimal" and
> "dotted-decimal" before using them, so I moved that section up. I'm still
> undecided on
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 07:23:28AM -0400, John Peacock wrote:
> I'm still undecided on "dotted-decimal" versus "dotted-integer" however...
+1 for "dotted-integer".
Marvin Humphrey
2009/7/15 David Golden :
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Gisle Aas wrote:
>> We obviously disagree about what makes code readable.
>
> Let me rephrase -- I think putting "use version" last means it's more
> likely that someone will inadvertently leave it off. Putting it first
> indicates that i
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM, demerphq wrote:
> There is something disturbing around the fact that we are hacking
> around a one line code parser here.
+1
We need 5.10.1 and configure_requires support to start the slow
process of getting us out of this box.
I still hope for "package Foo::Bar
On Jul 16, 2009, at 1:06 , John Peacock wrote:
Gisle Aas wrote:
I think the term "dotted-decimal" is pretty confusing, especially
when
what you contrast that with is "decimal version numbers" (which
includes
a dot). I suggest you call it "integers separated by dots" or
"dotted-integers" fo
I find all three equally cringe'worthy (those two AND the original use
version ...)
Adam K
2009/7/16 Gisle Aas :
> On Jul 15, 2009, at 23:36 , David Golden wrote:
>
>>
>>> Seems like a good reason now to do this then. Perhaps it's better to
>>> write:
>>>
>>> our $VERSION = version->declare("v1
12 matches
Mail list logo
