[squeak-dev] VersionNumber disallows zeros.
marcel.taeumel at hpi.de
Thu Sep 21 12:57:40 UTC 2017
Here is a discussion about this topic from 2008:
It includes an explanation from Stephen Pair, who wrote the code:
Am 21.09.2017 14:38:21 schrieb Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:
That sounds nonsensical. 4.1 should be larger than 3.1, and smaller than 4.1.0. Direct comparison is strictly for listing versions in ascending order, and as Jakob wrote, you need a more complex scheme for other purposes.
- Bert -
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Marcel Taeumel <marcel.taeumel at hpi.de [mailto:marcel.taeumel at hpi.de]> wrote:
If you cannot compare two versions, an error will be raised.
Am 21.09.2017 10:26:34 schrieb Jakob Reschke <jakob.reschke at student.hpi.de [mailto:jakob.reschke at student.hpi.de]>:
What is the current behavior if two branched version numbers are compared? true, false, error?
I would say they are not comparable anyway. What do you want to know? "Can I upgrade to get an increment?" "Can I upgrade without breaking some API?" "Which is newer?" All of these cannot be answered without additional information about the versioning scheme (e.g., in SemVer you could answer the first two queries, but not the third without an additional timestamp). And these queries should have their own messages instead of a general-purpose comparison.
Am 21.09.2017 08:44 schrieb "Taeumel, Marcel" <Marcel.Taeumel at hpi.de [mailto:Marcel.Taeumel at hpi.de]>:
I see several issues with the current implementation of VersionNumber. :)
- You cannot compare 4.1 to 3.1 because such branches are treated unordered.
- You cannot even compare 4.1.1 to 4.2.1 for the same reason. But you can compare 4.1 to 4.2 though.
This logic might be the reason to throw out the zero all together: 4.1 and 4.1.0 are not so different, yet the first will be comparable but the second will not. That "branch logic" seems to be the key. Try changing #initializeNumbers: to accept zero and then play around with the comparison logic.
It's kind of weird or at least incomprehensible. I cannot find useful comments either.
Am 20.09.2017 20:34:36 schrieb Tobias Pape <das.linux at gmx.de [mailto:das.linux at gmx.de]>:
what's the rationale of VersionNumber prohibiting zeros in any of the version parts?
Eg, 4.0.3 is not a valid VersionNumber currently.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev