On 17/01/2009, at 12:18 AM, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 21:53 +1100, Bernie Pope wrote:
Or would it be better to have something like:
Language.Python.Version30 Language.Python.Version26
In general my strategy has been to follow the structure of Language.C, but they appear to only have one version.
There had been some discussion about variants in Language.C. Currently it does GNU C + C99 but if they were split then the suggestion was:
Language.C.GNU Language.C.C99 Language.C.C89
Of course those are the common names of the versions. For Python where they are labelled with numbers rather than names then your suggestion of Language.Python.Version30 or Language.Python.V30 or whatever seems fine. Do you think it needs both digits? Would V2 and V3 not be enough? Surely V26 could read code intended for Python-2.4? And similarly a future Language.Python.V3 module that was compatible with Python-3.1 should still be able to read code for Python-3.0 right?
Good point Duncan. Yes, I think the single digit is enough. I'm a bit torn between: Language.Python.Version3 and Language.Python.V3 The former is a bit long, but the latter is a bit obscure. I don't like the compromise of "Ver3"; it is hard to pronounce. Does anyone have a strong preference for or against the long or short version? If not, I will go with the long one. It's a pity module name components can't be just sequences of digits. Thanks everyone for your advice. Cheers, Bernie.