scsh-hackers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Scsh-hackers] Proposal for packaging of scsh libraries

To: Anthony Carrico <acarrico@memebeam.org>
Subject: Re: [Scsh-hackers] Proposal for packaging of scsh libraries
From: Michel Schinz <Michel.Schinz@epfl.ch>
Date: Wed Nov 5 14:16:53 2003
Cc: Martin Gasbichler <gasbichl@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, scsh-hackers@lists.sourceforge.net
List-id: Discussion among the implementors <scsh-hackers.lists.sourceforge.net>
Sender: scsh-hackers-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Le Mercredi, 5 nov 2003, à 19:32 Europe/Zurich, Anthony Carrico a écrit :

On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:29:39PM +0100, Michel Schinz wrote:
Anthony Carrico <acarrico@memebeam.org> writes:
and then the tilde is inside single quotes, and therefore not expanded
anymore... I'm sure there's a solution to that, but I believe it's not
trivial. I would be delighted to be proven wrong, though.

Sorry, I missed that.

I'm not a shell expert (I must read the manuals to do anything), but
you could do:
  bash$ SCSH_LIB_DIR=\"$HOME/projects/scsh-packages/root\"

Right, this one seems ok.

I thought about another advantage that tilde expansion performed by scsh could have: if we say that users can have their own package tree, then configure's default value for --with-lib-dirs-list could be something like:

"~/scsh-packages/active" "~/scsh-packages/installed" "/usr/local/lib/scsh/modules/active" ...

and it would work for all users. But there might be other ways of achieving something similar.

Yes, for me version 1.2.3 is smaller than 1.20.3 (since the first
components of the two versions are equal, but the second are 2 and 20,
respectively, which means that the first is smaller). Do you think it
should be otherwise?

I agree that 1.2.3 is a smaller version than 1.20.3. I don't know if
1.2.3 is lexicographically smaller than 1.20.3. I guess it seems to be
true though:

scsh> (if (string< "1.2.3" "1.20.3") #t #f)
#t

Ah, sorry, there's a misunderstanding about what versions are. When I talk about a version, I mean an ordered sequence of integers. A string like "1.2.3" is *not* a version, but the *printed representation* of the version composed of the integer 1 followed by the integer 2, followed by the integer 3. When I say that these versions are ordered lexicographically, I mean that we compare these sequences of integers lexicographically, not their string representation. See for example: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LexicographicOrder.html

Michel.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>