What I meant is that ASDF does not "understand" that 20201015 is a three-part version, whose first part is "2020" second is "10" and third is "15".
So note that my example is "any version since October 2020." And yours is "any version since October fifteenth 2020.
On 18 Nov 2021, at 10:53, Marco Antoniotti wrote:
Why would ASDF not understand "version later than 20201015"? I am perfectly fine with using the full 8 digit timestamp.MAOn Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 4:24 PM Robert Goldman <rpgoldman@sift.info> wrote:On 18 Nov 2021, at 7:35, Eric Timmons wrote:
> On 11/18/21 3:45 AM, Marco Antoniotti wrote:
>> Sorry but I am missing something.
>>
>> It was said in this thread (don't remember who, apologies) that
>>
>> YYYYMMDD
>>
>> would work. Will it?
>
> Yes. YYYYMMDD is currently a valid version string (assuming it's all
> digits). Whatever we choose will allow a superset of what's already
> allowed.
>
> -Eric
That's true, but possibly stating the obvious: ASDF does not
"understand" a version string like that. So you can't say "any version
since October 2020 will work." Getting something like that to work would
be an exercise for the extension protocol.
This actually might make a good test case for us to see if the proposed
protocol (versioning method keyword initarg for defsystem) makes sense.
R
--Marco Antoniotti, Professor tel. +39 - 02 64 48 79 01
DISCo, Università Milano Bicocca U14 2043 http://dcb.disco.unimib.it
Viale Sarca 336
I-20126 Milan (MI) ITALY