The question is the same I asked when you introduced them :): Why are symbolic versions treated differently from normal ones? This has two dimensions: - why have a different pragma at all? - why have the distinction between symbols and versions, given that there will never be a regular version named 'stable'? Cheers, Doru On 21 Nov 2012, at 19:27, Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com> wrote:
Stef,
I'm not sure which context you are talking about ... the symbolic version #stable can be used as an argument anywhere that the linear version '1.1' can be used, so I think that it is true that symbolic versions can be used in a #version: message ...
So I guess I need a little more context ...
Dale
----- Original Message ----- | From: "Stéphane Ducasse" <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> | To: "Pharo Development" <Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr> | Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 2:19:02 PM | Subject: [Pharo-project] Metacello Why symbolicversion and not simply tagged version:? | | Dale | | in my goal to reduce the complexity of metacello, I'm wondering why | symbolic versions could not be expressed as version: | | because | | version: #stable | version: #development | | are symbolic versions and there is no clash possible with | | version: '1.1' | | Stef | |
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Things happen when they happen, not when you talk about them happening."