Floris Bruynooghe wrote:

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 03:15:24PM +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:

...

[original mail from python-dev http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-September/091947.html]

...

The pseudo-grammar is (I don't know how to write those but you'll get it hopefully)::

comp: '<'|'>'|'=='|'>='|'<='|'<>'|'!='|'in'|'not' 'in' comparison: expr (comp_op expr)* expr: STRING test: or_test or_test: and_test ('or' and_test)* and_test: not_test ('and' not_test)* not_test: 'not' not_test | comparison Here you're re-introducing '<', '>', '<=' and '>=' while you said [0]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 03:21:06PM +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote: that you where going to drop them. Right, that was a copy-paste typo:

comp: '=='|'!='|'in'|'not' 'in'

...

I'm still not convinced of allowing this between strings as it will likely lead to mistakes when comparing "versions". I'm still tempted by making "python_version" a RationalVersion() so that you can use '<', '>', '<=' and '>=' safely, not really convinced of writing something like:

[setup:python_version == '2.2' or python_version == '2.3' or python_version == '2.4'] That's quite verbose indeed, but that is required if we want to keep string comparison.

what about keeping python_version a string, but changing the way it's created ?

python_version : string_version('%s.%s' % (sys.version_info[0], sys.version_info[1]))

where string_version() is a function that makes sure the output is something we can compare to strings like '2.4', etc.

I wouldn't talk about RationalVersion() from PEP 386 here, because we just want a subset of it in this function : The Python version scheme.

Then we could re-introduce '<' and '>'

That's not a bad idea, how about defining python_version as:

'%.8X' % sys.hexversion

Then using '<' and '>' would work again I think, just a little harder to use. (Of course don't forget the bikeshedding about the name: python_hexversion, hexversion, ...)

I think I'd rather see us restrict ourselves to just == and != until we can finalize the version numbering PEP, then allow '>' and '<' in all places (after converting internally to RationalVersion, or whatever). I realize it's a hassle in the short term, but in the long term it should make things easier for us. Eric.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 07:03:45PM +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:

...

That's not a bad idea, how about defining python_version as:

 '%.8X' % sys.hexversion

Then using '<' and '>' would work again I think, just a little harder to use.  (Of course don't forget the bikeshedding about the name: python_hexversion, hexversion, ...)

What about having both in that case ? a regular python version and the one you mention in python_hexversion.

The documentation will state that python_hexversion can be used with '<' and '>'

That works too of course. -- Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org