Re: Could we have elegant version requirement from 5.3 on?

[Coroutines <coroutines@...>]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Rena <hyperhacker@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Rena <hyperhacker@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is true. You could just as easily write:
>> #if !(HAVE_BIT_OPS && HAVE_INTEGERS)
>> instead of:
>> #if LUA_VERSION < 53
>>
>> though I find myself wondering how you get a simple version check like
>> that wrong. :-)
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my Game Boy.
>
>
> Someone has also pointed out (rather rudely) on IRC that "53" is not a
> sensible format for the version number and something like "0x05030107" (from
> 5.3.1r7) would be more future proof. (But feature testing is generally a
> better idea than version testing, anyway.)
>
> I should probably also mention that this is just a concept idea and I'm not
> advocating that Lua should invoke CPP.
>
> --
> Sent from my Game Boy.

My intention wasn't to be rude, but perhaps it was behind your back ~
sorry...  I do most of my talking on #lua, and I don't usually see
productive conversations happening on lua-l.  My frustration was more
with the guy who responded after you saying version checks like this
were largely irrelevant :p  Both capability and version checks can be
useful depending on the situation.  (sorry)