I still do not understand why symbolic versions
cannot be treated
like normal versions (I argued for this before :)). Their name should
be unique within the overall versions anyway, so I do not see where
the compatibility would break.
Cheers, Doru
On 14 Apr 2011, at 23:32, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
I mentioned something similar to this a few
months ago. The reason
is primarily for making legacy configuration work.
Alexandre
On 14 Apr 2011, at 16:28, Tudor Girba wrote:
I did not know about this convention. I find this
design to be
unnecessarily confusing.
Why is this needed? Why not use strings / symbols
interchangeable?
Cheers, Doru
On 14 Apr 2011, at 23:24, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
>> now when I do
>>
>> ConfigurationOfRPackage project load: #'1.0'
>>
>> is telling to me that there is no symbolic version and I do
>> not get it.
>
>
>
> Instead, you should do: ConfigurationOfRPackage project load:
> '1.0'
>
> #'1.0' vs '1.0'
>
> Alexandre
>
> -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre
> Bergel
http://www.bergel.eu
> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Moose-dev
> mailing list Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Some battles are better lost than fought."
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre
Bergel
http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.