> It seems to me that all this version range talk relates pretty > directly to PEP 386. > > The Python version numbers themselves are the simplest type of > "Normalized Version"s, and since comparisons of "NormalizedVersion"s > are defined in PEP 386, and that's really all we're talking about > here, shouldn't this really just follow and reference that document? That's for the ordering operators (<, <=, >, >=). Tarek absolutely wants a shortcut way of specifying a range, and such a mechanism is not discusses in PEP 386 (other than the conventional >=min,<max, which is not shortcut enough). > Sure we might like some sugar to make expressing ranges simpler, but > shouldn't the explicit meanings of any rules be stated in terms of > Normalized Version comparisons? That turns out to be tricky. I agree that the PEP doesn't currently specify it properly (at least, it now says something that Tarek said he didn't want). However, try coming up with wording that says "~=A means >=A and < 'words to describe the proper upper bound'". Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4