http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=102398


in reply to Everything you wanted to know about Module Version Numbers and Checking

I am sorry to say that this is not as helpful as the title had seemed to promise.

You begin and end with questions and conundrums. That is not helpful in a tutorial. A tutorial should provide practical help to the naive but eager reader.

In the third paragraph you pose the key question: do you use the old way or the new way? Then you spend the rest of the post talking around but not answering that key question. I have read this through several times and I do not find that answer.

As I read your 'tutorial' and think about my expectations, I am aware that tutorials usually have one of two forms (either as a whole, or sub-section by sub-section). Either:

or...

Your solution section seems to be missing. You have illuminated the problem quite well -- and that is worth something. But sadly, after reading your post, I find myself even more discouraged in my search for the proper or best solution.

  • Comment on Re: Everything you wanted to know about Module Version Numbers and Checking

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Everything you wanted to know about Module Version Numbers and Checking
by John M. Dlugosz (Monsignor) on Aug 06, 2001 at 18:06 UTC
    I'll edit it to point to a module containing an implementation of a "good" solution, after I finish writing one.

    I'm sorry that the state of the language features is inconsistant. That's what's out there to know!

    This was originally posted in Meditations, where I collected comments and corrections for a week before posting the final version here. Nobody had any "good news" with regards to this feature.

    —John