On 2017/02/14 15:49:26, dak wrote:
On 2017/02/14 15:46:20, git wrote: > On 2017/02/14 15:37:35, pwm wrote: > > On 2017/02/14 15:15:07, git wrote: > > > I like this more because it's more of a typical procedure
invocation.
> > > I think I'll create a new patch with this and a simplified calculate-version > > > (that doesn't accept string lists) > > > > Well, having the procedure as the first argument might be more
scheme-ish?
> > > > Maybe best would be to have a "version-compare" function that
compares two
> > version lists using a procedure. Then define "ly:version?" so it
calls
> > "version-compare" with the current LilyPond version (to handle the
primary
use > > case). The "version-compare" function could be David's looping
function,
but > > modified so that it took two version lists and a procedure as
arguments.
> > This is what I'm currently working on. > However, I found an issue in David's suggestion, namely the > (op 0 0) ;; return #t iff op includes equality > line. > This makes the function return #t when comparing with = and one list
shortened
> Try e.g. (ly:version? = 2 16) > This returns #t because in the third iteration when the reference
version has
> run out of elements it compares 0 to 0.
Have you actually tried it? If your major version is not actually
2.16, you
will not even _get_ into a third iteration.
Ok, I take that back. I admit that the tie-breaker does not work with strict equality. I'll have to think about it. https://codereview.appspot.com/317270043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
