From xemacs-m  Thu May  1 10:31:21 1997
Received: from cs.utah.edu (cs.utah.edu [128.110.4.21])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA02088
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 1 May 1997 10:31:21 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from jaguar.cs.utah.edu by cs.utah.edu (8.8.4/utah-2.21-cs)
	id JAA11701; Thu, 1 May 1997 09:31:17 -0600 (MDT)
Received: by jaguar.cs.utah.edu (8.6.10/utah-2.15-leaf)
	id JAA06520; Thu, 1 May 1997 09:31:17 -0600
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 09:31:17 -0600
From: eeide@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Eric Eide)
Message-Id: <199705011531.JAA06520@jaguar.cs.utah.edu>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
In-reply-to: Steven L Baur's message of , Apr 30 <m2bu6wqi4o.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: Experimental #-, #+ reader syntax patch

FWIW, I still think that versions should be expressed as integers, not as
floating-point values.  I.e.,

	not this:	#+19.34
	but this:	#+(version 19 34)

Actually, I'd like to see something more

	like this:	#+(version (>= 19 34))
			#+(version (>= 19 34) (< 20)) ;; implicit `and'

This new sytax would:

	+ eliminate confusion re: `19.1' versus `19.10';
	+ allow for range-checking predicates;
	+ allow for major-version-only checks; and
	+ (perhaps) eliminate problems caused by floating-point inaccuracies.

I suggested the above new syntax in my response to Erik Naggum's proposal, but
it seems to have gotten lost in the noise of the subsequent discussion.

Comments?

Eric.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Eide <eeide@cs.utah.edu>  .   University of Utah Dept. of Computer Science
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~eeide  . +1 (801) 585-5512 voice, +1 (801) 581-5843 FAX

