Numeric version of ZSH_VERSION?

Numeric version of ZSH_VERSION?

[Rocky Bernstein]

It'd be nice to have a numeric version of ZSH_VERSION which is just a
monotonically increasing number. It would make testing for features in
(possibly open-ended) ranges easy.

Thanks.

Re: Numeric version of ZSH_VERSION?

[Dan Nelson]

In the last episode (Aug 30), Rocky Bernstein said:
> It'd be nice to have a numeric version of ZSH_VERSION which is just a
> monotonically increasing number. It would make testing for features in
> (possibly open-ended) ranges easy.

The Misc/is-at-least function should do what you need:

OTHER FUNCTIONS
 Descriptions
  is-at-least needed [ present ]
    Perform a greater-than-or-equal-to  comparison  of  two  strings
    having  the format of a zsh version number; that is, a string of
    numbers and text with segments separated by dots or dashes.   If
    the  present string is not provided, $ZSH_VERSION is used.  Seg-
    ments are paired left-to-right in the two strings  with  leading
    non-number parts ignored.  If one string has fewer segments than
    the other, the missing segments are considered zero.

    This is useful in startup files to set options and  other  state
    that are not available in all versions of zsh.

      is-at-least 3.1.6-15 && setopt NO_GLOBAL_RCS
      is-at-least 3.1.0 && setopt HIST_REDUCE_BLANKS
      is-at-least 2.6-17 || print "You can't use is-at-least here."


-- 
	Dan Nelson
	dnelson@allantgroup.com

Re: Numeric version of ZSH_VERSION?

[Rocky Bernstein]

Ok -  Great. I'll use this.

By the way the -z option listed as an option under autoload is not
documented there. However this is written:
              Equivalent to "functions -u", with the exception of -X/+X and  -w.

which is a bit compressed in meaning. I gather it means two different
things. First that it does the same thing as "functions -u"  and
therefore second that it takes the same options as that, except those
mentioned. So third, you should look at "functions" to find out the
meaning of the unmentioned options.

Ok. So we then go to "functions" to try to figure out what "-z" does.
And along the way we've now picked up another option "-u" that we need
to understand.  Both "-z" and "-u" are listed again but not documented
in "functions" either.  However we get

    Equivalent to "typeset -f" with the exception ...

Okay so now we have to chase down a 3rd reference and have picked up
yet a third option to now understand: "-f".

typeset has a grab bag of options that have nothing to do with either
"functions -u" or "autoload". In fact the "-u" means something
different when combined with "-f" than it does when that's not there.


On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> wrote:
> In the last episode (Aug 30), Rocky Bernstein said:
>> It'd be nice to have a numeric version of ZSH_VERSION which is just a
>> monotonically increasing number. It would make testing for features in
>> (possibly open-ended) ranges easy.
>
> The Misc/is-at-least function should do what you need:
>
> OTHER FUNCTIONS
>  Descriptions
>  is-at-least needed [ present ]
>    Perform a greater-than-or-equal-to  comparison  of  two  strings
>    having  the format of a zsh version number; that is, a string of
>    numbers and text with segments separated by dots or dashes.   If
>    the  present string is not provided, $ZSH_VERSION is used.  Seg-
>    ments are paired left-to-right in the two strings  with  leading
>    non-number parts ignored.  If one string has fewer segments than
>    the other, the missing segments are considered zero.
>
>    This is useful in startup files to set options and  other  state
>    that are not available in all versions of zsh.
>
>      is-at-least 3.1.6-15 && setopt NO_GLOBAL_RCS
>      is-at-least 3.1.0 && setopt HIST_REDUCE_BLANKS
>      is-at-least 2.6-17 || print "You can't use is-at-least here."
>
>
> --
>        Dan Nelson
>        dnelson@allantgroup.com
>

Re: Numeric version of ZSH_VERSION?

[Richard Hartmann]

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 05:16, Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> wrote:

> The Misc/is-at-least function should do what you need:

It lacks a is-at-max sibling _if_ you need to actually check on ranges.
Why not just use revision numbers for this (unless ZSH falls into the
git trap, at some point :p)?


Richard

Re: Numeric version of ZSH_VERSION?

[Mikael Magnusson]

2008/9/1 Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 05:16, Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> The Misc/is-at-least function should do what you need:
>
> It lacks a is-at-max sibling _if_ you need to actually check on ranges.
> Why not just use revision numbers for this (unless ZSH falls into the
> git trap, at some point :p)?

function is-at-max() { return is-at-least $2 $1 } maybe? I am a bit too lazy
to think it through though.

-- 
Mikael Magnusson

Re: Numeric version of ZSH_VERSION?

[Rocky Bernstein]

Yeah, I thought of that too. One can use ! is-at-least and booleans
for ranges. Or one can add as you say all of this into the is-at-least
package.

This kind of awkwardness would be more glaring in languages that
support numeric ranges (e.g. Perl, Python, Ruby).

My personal view is that is-at-least is a more complicated  solution
to a problem which is more easily and naturally solved  by adding a
numeric variable which just keeps increasing, e.g. 08100101 which
might be the first change of Sept 1,  '08. (I just tried
using 08100101 in an arithmetic expression and the number seems not to
be too large.)

ksh recently added such a thing to .sh.version, so that in a string
context it prints a string while in a numeric context it prints a
number:

  $ echo ${.sh.version}
  Version M 93t 2008-08-25
  $ printf "%d\n" .sh.version
  20080825

(From which I gather David Korn and Glenn Fowler don't plan on more
than one release a day.)


On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Richard Hartmann
<richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 05:16, Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> The Misc/is-at-least function should do what you need:
>
> It lacks a is-at-max sibling _if_ you need to actually check on ranges.
> Why not just use revision numbers for this (unless ZSH falls into the
> git trap, at some point :p)?
>
>
> Richard
>

Re: Numeric version of ZSH_VERSION?

[Rocky Bernstein]

Can't count, make that 08090101.

Also, I meant to mention that is-at-least is fine for my needs as I
hope I indicated in my first reply. Alas, since ZSH_VERSION doesn't
change as quickly as I'd like, I still have to test for specific
features within 4.3.6-dev-0. But ZSH_VERSION is one of the features
tested using is-at-least.

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Rocky Bernstein
<rocky.bernstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I thought of that too. One can use ! is-at-least and booleans
> for ranges. Or one can add as you say all of this into the is-at-least
> package.
>
> This kind of awkwardness would be more glaring in languages that
> support numeric ranges (e.g. Perl, Python, Ruby).
>
> My personal view is that is-at-least is a more complicated  solution
> to a problem which is more easily and naturally solved  by adding a
> numeric variable which just keeps increasing, e.g. 08100101 which
> might be the first change of Sept 1,  '08. (I just tried
> using 08100101 in an arithmetic expression and the number seems not to
> be too large.)
>
> ksh recently added such a thing to .sh.version, so that in a string
> context it prints a string while in a numeric context it prints a
> number:
>
>  $ echo ${.sh.version}
>  Version M 93t 2008-08-25
>  $ printf "%d\n" .sh.version
>  20080825
>
> (From which I gather David Korn and Glenn Fowler don't plan on more
> than one release a day.)
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Richard Hartmann
> <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 05:16, Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Misc/is-at-least function should do what you need:
>>
>> It lacks a is-at-max sibling _if_ you need to actually check on ranges.
>> Why not just use revision numbers for this (unless ZSH falls into the
>> git trap, at some point :p)?
>>
>>
>> Richard
>>
>