GNU bug report logs - #5744
23.1.92; doc string of `version<' etc.

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>

Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:00:03 UTC

Severity: minor

Done: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log

Message #29 received at 5744 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Jason Rumney <jasonr <at> gnu.org>
Cc: stepnem <at> gmail.com, 5744 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams <at> oracle.com
Subject: Re: bug#5744: 23.1.92; doc string of `version<' etc.
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:12:38 +0200

> From: Jason Rumney <jasonr <at> gnu.org>
> Cc: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>,  stepnem <at> gmail.com,  5744 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:12:11 +0800
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > With versions, it might be better to use "older" and "newer" instead.
> 
> I don't think it is possible to come up with an algorithm for that.

I didn't suggest to change the existing algorithm, only the doc
string.

> There may be maintainence branches still running after a new major
> release (eg gcc 4.3.4 is newer than 4.4.1, despite being a lower
> version).

I didn't mean "newer" by its release date.  4.4.1 is "newer" than
4.3.4, no matter what their release dates are.

Maybe "lower" and "higher" is indeed a better terminology.  Or maybe
we should use both, to drive the point home.
This bug report was last modified 15 years and 59 days ago.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.