Re: [Caml-list] OCaml 4.04.0+beta1

[Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1546 bytes --]

I personally use (< "4.03") instead of (< "4.03.0"), and I believe that
this way to rule out 4.03.x versions would remain correct (and readable) if
the negative-"~" convention was adopted, as long we don't use "4.03~foo" as
a version number but rather "4.03.0~foo".

(Note that "4.05~dev" could have the nice effect that software configured
to pessimistically reject future OCaml releases (< 4.05) could still be
built from a development version for testing.)

I must say that this semantics for ~ looks rather nice -- although I agree
that writing foo~~ would be a wart and should be avoided.

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Damien Doligez <damien.doligez@inria.fr>
wrote:

>
> > On 2016-08-12, at 14:50, David Allsopp <dra-news@metastack.com> wrote:
> >
> > If such a change were agreed, it would also be possible to alter opam
> lint (or at least opam-repository linting, once that's fully a "thing") to
> display a lint warning/info that things like ocaml {< "4.05"} probably mean
> "ocaml" {< "4.05~~"}.
>
> So every mention of an OCaml version number in every opam package
> description file will have to be suffixed with a ~. And that has to be done
> before we change the OCaml numbering scheme.
>
> And I still don't know what's the upside, except for "that's how Debian
> does it"...
>
> -- Damien
>
>
> --
> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2537 bytes --]