14 Apr
2011
14 Apr
'11
10:34 p.m.
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:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"No matter how many recipes we know, we still value a chef."
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:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Some battles are better lost than fought."
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
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