Article discussing Go, could well be D

Jacob Carlborg doob at me.com
Mon Jun 20 06:17:11 PDT 2011


On 2011-06-20 14:02, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> Currently I have the three-part-version as default and then a custom
>> version (which basically can contain anything). The reason for the
>> three-part-version scheme is explained in the wiki.
>
> So it's to have defined semantics for version changes, to standardize
> thing like api breakage. I think this makes sense, although it forces a
> special versioning scheme on users it might be worth it.

It doesn't force a version scheme, you can always use the a custom 
version but then you won't be able to use the "~>" operator. Which is 
the whole reason for using this version scheme.

> It might really be overkill. But consider this example:
> package FOO requires libjson>= 0.0.1 as a dynamic library.
> package BAR requires latest libjson from git as a dynamic library.
>
> now FOO could use libjson-git, but how does the package manager know
> that? It cannot know whether the git version is more recent than 0.0.1.
> It's also not possible to install both libraries at a time, as both are
> dynamic libraries with the same name.
> We now have a conflict where you can only install FOO or BAR, but not
> both.

Ok, I think I understand now. Thanks for the explanation.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list