Re: module _VERSION number scheme proposal

[HyperHacker <hyperhacker@...>]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 01:44, David Hollander <dhllndr@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the present goal is "unique id", instead of:
> (file name, version protocol) --> unique id
>
> why not just do:
> (file name, sha2 hash of content) --> unique id
>
> A protocol for versions is itself subject to versions, whereas a SHA2
> hash is not.
>
> - David
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Michael Richter <ttmrichter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> D'oh!  Sorry.  Hit "send" by accident.
>>
>> On 10 November 2011 15:06, Michael Richter <ttmrichter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm finding all this string- and float-fetish here a bit odd.  Is there
>>> some reason we can't just have version tables like this:
>>
>> M1._version = { 1, 2, 3 }   // equivalent to version 1.2.3
>> M2._version = { 4, 5 }      // equivalent to version 4.5
>> M3._version = { 3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 9, 2, 6, 5, 3, 5, 8, 9, 8 }
>>                             // equivalent to version dotted-pi
>>
>> We could then have a standard module version metatable (initially a de facto
>> standard, but later perhaps even officially blessed) that provides natural
>> comparison semantics (so that 4.5 is greater than 1.2.3, for example), that
>> provides a default printing format, both long-form and short-form even if
>> you'd like and provides other versioning services.
>> --
>> "Perhaps people don't believe this, but throughout all of the discussions of
>> entering China our focus has really been what's best for the Chinese people.
>> It's not been about our revenue or profit or whatnot."
>> --Sergey Brin, demonstrating the emptiness of the "don't be evil" mantra.
>>
>
>

Tables and hashes aren't easily comparable.

-- 
Sent from my toaster.