[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