Suresh Govindachar wrote: > Tony asked: > > Suresh Govindachar wrote: > >> > >> + #if (ACTIVEPERL_VERSION >= 822) > >> + # define PERL589_OR_LATER > >> + #endif > >> + #if (PERL_REVISION == 5) && (PERL_VERSION == 8) && (PERL_SUBVERSION >= > 9) > >> + # define PERL589_OR_LATER > >> + #endif > >> + #if (PERL_REVISION == 5) && (PERL_VERSION >= 10) > > > > -------------------------------------------------^ > > shouldn't this be (PERL_VERSION >= 9)? > > Otherwise Perl 5.9.x won't be regarded as "5.8.9 or later" > > Good catch but I think there is something about perl's > version's middle number being even always. Or it is the > case that there will not be any 5.9 at all. > > (I heard that both 5.8.9 and 5.10 are expected in a few months > http://www.slideshare.net/acme/whats-new-in-perl-510 .) > > --Suresh > > >
well, (PERL_VERSION > 8) then? Some versioning schemes use even numbers for release versions and odd numbers for beta or preliminary versions. or maybe even #ifndef PERL_SUBVERSION # define PERL_SUBVERSION 0 #endif #if ((PERL_REVISION * 10000) + (PERL_VERSION * 100) + PERL_SUBVERSION >= 50809) || (ACTIVEPERL_VERSION >= 822) # define PERL589_OR_LATER #endif Best regards, Tony. -- BE ALERT!!!! (The world needs more lerts ...) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
