Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris
 
PerlMonks  

Re^5: RFC: Creating unicursal stars (agism)

by ikegami (Patriarch)
on Nov 09, 2009 at 21:05 UTC ( [id://806027]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^4: RFC: Creating unicursal stars (agism)
in thread RFC: Creating unicursal stars

(though I don't recall using Perl v2 that year)

Versions, not revisions. Not counting development releases, the three versions of Perl since 2000 are 5.6, 5.8, 5.10.

#define PERL_REVISION 5 /* age */ #define PERL_VERSION 6 /* epoch */ #define PERL_SUBVERSION 2 /* generation */

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: RFC: Creating unicursal stars (revisions)
by tye (Sage) on Nov 10, 2009 at 05:28 UTC

    Nice quoting of p5git://patchlevel.h. But I stand by my assessment of that usage as unusual, even strange.

    "Perl version 6" finds ~55k references for something I expected to be a quite common usage. Since, according to you, Your Mother, and patchlevel.h there actually aren't any versions of "Perl revision 6" (well, it seems premature to me, anyway), I'm pretty sure that google isn't actually finding (many) instances of "Perl version 6.0" (4 isn't "many", especially since 3 of them are actually talking about "Perl subversion 6.0.0" or something even more specific).

    By (extreme) contrast, "Perl revision 6" finds 6 hits (7 by now, surely) and it looks like at least half of them aren't even talking about "revisions of Perl" as you seem to think we should. :)

    I also expect it to be quite common to read something like "Perl version 5.6.1"[2M] (and not to say "Perl subversion 5.6.1"[0!]).

    So, the internet appears to know that "Perl version" applies to things like "6" and like "5.6.1", the two positions where the term shouldn't be applied. I'm not sure how to use google to prove that when people write "Perl verison 5.6" they usually are just using it as shorthand for "Perl subverison 5.6.0" and not for "Perl subversions from 5.6.0 but before 5.7.0", but I really believe that they usually are.

    After meditating on the definitions of "revision" and "version", I can support the use of "revision" for things like "Perl 6" from a linguistic point of view. But the internet proves that such usage wouldn't be adopted (patchlevel.h has used those terms for a very long time). So I'd probably go with something more like version.genus.release (lots of synonyms for "genus" could be substituted but "genus" is my favorite so far) but realize that "major version" or "major revision" is probably required for clarity (and realize that "genus" still wouldn't be clear just because nobody much talks about such things).

    - tye        

      But I stand by my assessment of that usage as unusual, even strange

      Outside of Perl, sure. In Perl, the second number has long been treated as the major version. This is especially true now that the top number can't be bumped without conflicting with the name of another language.

      By (extreme) contrast, "Perl revision 6" finds 6 hits

      I don't know why would you expect "Perl revision 6" to get matches. I'm surprised "Perl version 6" gets as much as 6% of "Perl 6" + "Perl6", though.

      I also expect it to be quite common to read something like "Perl version 5.6.1"

      Me too.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://806027]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others exploiting the Monastery: (3)
As of 2024-04-19 22:54 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found