[Rubygems-developers] 0.4.0 bugfix release

Jim Weirich jim at weirichhouse.org
Mon May 31 19:09:57 EDT 2004

Chad Fowler wrote:
> On 31/5/2004, at 6:08 PM, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
>> What happened to "1.*"?
> Good question.  I think "1.*" would make (B) more palatable.  Jim, has 
> your taste changed or does "1.*" fail in some functional way?

Suppose version 1.2 of a package introduces some forward compatible 
additions to the API.  My program needs the new features.

    require_gem package, "= 1.*"   # allows version 1.1
    require_gem package, "*>= 1.2" # doesn't allow 1.1

I think the * convention is intuitive, but lacks expressive power.  I 
don't currently favor it

-- Jim Weirich    jim at weirichhouse.org     http://onestepback.org
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)

More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list