[Rubygems-developers] 0.4.0 bugfix release

Gavin Sinclair gsinclair at soyabean.com.au
Mon May 31 16:09:26 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

Since you're implementing option A as well (multiple version specs in one
require_gem call), doesn't this meet the requirements?

  require_gem package, "= 1.*", ">= 1.2"

Gavin




More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list