Re: [Moose-dev] Re: help help help
Locked
Re: [Moose-dev] Re: help help help
 
|
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 > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev -- www.tudorgirba.com "Some battles are better lost than fought." |
|
|
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 >> [hidden email] >> 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 ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. |
Re: [Moose-dev] Re: help help help
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba
thanks doru
] On Apr 14, 2011, at 10:28 PM, 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 >> [hidden email] >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Some battles are better lost than fought." > > > |
Re: [Moose-dev] Re: help help help
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
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 >>> [hidden email] >>> 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 > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "No matter how many recipes we know, we still value a chef." |
Re: [Moose-dev] Re: help help help
|
|
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: >> >>> 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 [hidden email] >>>> 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 >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> >> > > -- www.tudorgirba.com > > "No matter how many recipes we know, we still value a chef." > > > > > > |
Re: [Moose-dev] Re: help help help
|
|
Hi,
On 14 Apr 2011, at 22:49, Dale Henrichs wrote: > Could you point me to the original mail where you argued for this? I would have to look for it, so better stat afresh :) > 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:) The whole current discussion started from the realization that: ConfigurationOfRPackage project load: #'1.0' --> looks for a symbolic version ConfigurationOfRPackage project load: '1.0' --> looks for a regular version I said that this is confusing, and I believe it does not have to be like that if symbolic versions are treated the same as regular versions. Cheers, Doru > 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: >>> >>>> 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 [hidden email] >>>>> 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 >>> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "No matter how many recipes we know, we still value a chef." >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Live like you mean it." |
Re: [Moose-dev] Re: help help help
|
|
On 04/14/2011 02:09 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
> Hi, > > On 14 Apr 2011, at 22:49, Dale Henrichs wrote: > >> Could you point me to the original mail where you argued for this? > > I would have to look for it, so better stat afresh :) > >> 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:) > > The whole current discussion started from the realization that: > > ConfigurationOfRPackage project load: #'1.0' --> looks for a symbolic version > ConfigurationOfRPackage project load: '1.0' --> looks for a regular version > > I said that this is confusing, and I believe it does not have to be like that if symbolic versions are treated the same as regular versions. FWIW, I intended for symbolic versions to be in a separate namespace, so that #stable, #bleedingEdge, #development and any other symbolic versions wouldn't inadvertently collide with a literal version of the same name. Symbolic versions are defined differently and mean something different from literal versions, so I wanted a user to be able to look at a load expression and know that if she saw something that looked like this: ConfigurationOfRPackage project load: #'1.0' That she would not be surprised when the `ConfigurationOfRPackage project currentVersion` answered '1.0-beta.28.3' and not #'1.0'. So when someone gets the error 'Symbolic version not found' when they try to run `ConfigurationOfRPackage project load: #'1.0'`, I say that it is doing exactly what it should be doing ... With that said, I don't deny that it is confusing, but really not any more confustion than getting the error 'Version not found' when trying to run the following expression `ConfigurationOfRPackage project load: '1,0'`...There's a typo in the expression and it would be nice if the error said, "you've put a #, instead of $. in the version name"... Finally, I think that the distinction between symbolic versions and literal versions will be much more obvious in the MetacelloBrowser and typing errors won't be the primary issue... Dale |
«
Return to Metacello
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |