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. https://codereview.appspot.com/317270043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
