14 Apr
2011
14 Apr
'11
10:49 p.m.
Could you point me to the original mail where you argued for this?
From this thread I cannot tell (I know, I guess I am just dense:) what
the problem is nor what the proposed solution would be, so I cannot
comment without some more context...
It's quite possible that I missed the point the last time around, so
you'll have to start at the beginning of this conversation to bring me
into the loop:)
Dale
On 04/14/2011 01:34 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
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:
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: 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
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Some battles are better lost than fought."