* caml versions format
@ 2006-09-13 15:34 Guillaume Rousse
2006-09-13 16:12 ` [Caml-list] " Virgile Prevosto
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Guillaume Rousse @ 2006-09-13 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: caml-list
I just get struck by a "3.10+dev8" version string, which breaks my
assumtion that ocaml version are always formated as X.Y.Z, where X, Y
and Z are numerical only.
Do all development version using this specific format, or are they any
other fancy extension ? And how should it get compared to other version
? Should 3.10+dev8 satisfy a minimal 3.10.0 version requirement ?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] caml versions format
2006-09-13 15:34 caml versions format Guillaume Rousse
@ 2006-09-13 16:12 ` Virgile Prevosto
2006-09-13 18:09 ` Martin Jambon
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Virgile Prevosto @ 2006-09-13 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: caml-list
Hello Guillaume,
2006/9/13, Guillaume Rousse <Guillaume.Rousse@inria.fr>:
> I just get struck by a "3.10+dev8" version string, which breaks my
> assumtion that ocaml version are always formated as X.Y.Z, where X, Y
> and Z are numerical only.
I had the same issue once. Since then, the documentation for
Sys.ocaml_version details what you can find in the string:
http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/libref/Sys.html
(this is the last item in the page). Basically, you have something like
X.Y[.Z][+comment], where the last two parts are optional.
--
E tutto per oggi, a la prossima volta
Virgile
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [Caml-list] caml versions format
2006-09-13 16:12 ` [Caml-list] " Virgile Prevosto
@ 2006-09-13 18:09 ` Martin Jambon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Martin Jambon @ 2006-09-13 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: virgile.prevosto; +Cc: caml-list
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Virgile Prevosto wrote:
> Hello Guillaume,
>
> 2006/9/13, Guillaume Rousse <Guillaume.Rousse@inria.fr>:
> > I just get struck by a "3.10+dev8" version string, which breaks my
> > assumtion that ocaml version are always formated as X.Y.Z, where X, Y
> > and Z are numerical only.
>
> I had the same issue once. Since then, the documentation for
> Sys.ocaml_version details what you can find in the string:
> http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/libref/Sys.html
> (this is the last item in the page). Basically, you have something like
> X.Y[.Z][+comment], where the last two parts are optional.
In the micmatch tutorial, I give this example, which should parse the
version string correctly (or abort):
# Sys.ocaml_version;;
- : string = "3.08.3"
# RE num = digit+;;
# let / (num as major : int)
"." (num as minor : int)
("." (num as patchlevel := fun s -> Some (int_of_string s))
| ("" as patchlevel = None))
("+" (_* as additional_info := fun s -> Some s)
| ("" as additional_info = None))
eos / = Sys.ocaml_version
;;
val additional_info : string option = None
val major : int = 3
val minor : int = 8
val patchlevel : int option = Some 3
--
Martin Jambon, PhD
http://martin.jambon.free.fr
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-09-13 18:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-09-13 15:34 caml versions format Guillaume Rousse
2006-09-13 16:12 ` [Caml-list] " Virgile Prevosto
2006-09-13 18:09 ` Martin Jambon
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox