[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#5744: 23.1.92; doc string of `version<' etc.
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#5744: 23.1.92; doc string of `version<' etc. |
Date: |
Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:12:38 +0200 |
> From: Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org>
> Cc: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>, stepnem@gmail.com,
> 5744@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:12:11 +0800
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > With versions, it might be better to use "older" and "newer" instead.
>
> I don't think it is possible to come up with an algorithm for that.
I didn't suggest to change the existing algorithm, only the doc
string.
> There may be maintainence branches still running after a new major
> release (eg gcc 4.3.4 is newer than 4.4.1, despite being a lower
> version).
I didn't mean "newer" by its release date. 4.4.1 is "newer" than
4.3.4, no matter what their release dates are.
Maybe "lower" and "higher" is indeed a better terminology. Or maybe
we should use both, to drive the point home.
- bug#5744: 23.1.92; doc string of `version<' etc., Drew Adams, 2010/03/20
- bug#5744: 23.1.92; doc string of `version<' etc., Štěpán Němec, 2010/03/20
- bug#5744: 23.1.92; doc string of `version<' etc., Jason Rumney, 2010/03/20
- bug#5744: 23.1.92; doc string of `version<' etc.,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#5744: 23.1.92; doc string of `version<' etc., Drew Adams, 2010/03/21
- bug#5744: 23.1.92; doc string of `version<' etc., Eli Zaretskii, 2010/03/21
- bug#5744: 23.1.92; doc string of `version<' etc., Drew Adams, 2010/03/21