From: Carlom <carlom@...>
Date: 2001-10-30T15:34:30+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:23810] Re: RubyGems Status (was: Re: Someinspirations from REBOL)

Very Cool Idea!!!

Carl

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Thomas <Dave@PragmaticProgrammer.com>
To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 11:15 PM
Subject: [ruby-talk:23809] Re: RubyGems Status (was: Re: Someinspirations
from REBOL)


> Robert Feldt <feldt@ce.chalmers.se> writes:
>
> > I like this even though I think there are different
> > types of "dependencies" so we might want to introduce classes for them,
> > eg:
> >
> > >  requires "RyansCoolGem, 0.0.2"
> > >  requires "RobertsCoolGem, 2.0.0"
> >
> > would become
> >
> > dependency Depends.new("RyansCoolGem", "0.0.2")
> > dependency Conflicts.new("RobertsCoolGem", "2.0.0", "Name clashes")
>
> Agreed. In fact I'd probably want to go slightly further and make
> versions a Class too: that way we'd have more consistent numbering
> that simply relying on a String.
>
>   dependsOn Gem("RyansCoolGem") >= V(0, 0, 2)
>
> where V() generates a version number object and Gem returns an object
> that overrides the relational operators and simply records the fact
> they were called for later comparison with the Gem's real version
> number.
>
>
> Dave