Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:61623
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain mindplay.dk from 209.85.212.42 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSx9GqieXx0W4vgWu_3=Am97EsHjRTi7HOcLCvERcqD4RQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADqTB_jrj__c-1d=F2zuK_Rj4J_HpXkrqPgA3J57Nxi7WBTBTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN+gjSdiyD=BTJyoYYuwxyJLiBD-45-bzRWw9HoYRXjCOSRX3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5009C8AA.10603@sugarcrm.com>
	<CADqTB_i8b39JXnNnv=ZUtrXBBup8f+jafhuEntgCU3CpQGSSxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSx9GqieXx0W4vgWu_3=Am97EsHjRTi7HOcLCvERcqD4RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:52:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CADqTB_gfaCQSwecbOzCxBEPzCBDtHxh=Q-pwghPo97PJ15efUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9cfc8307bc5f704c5616239
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] common issue with version_compare()
From: rasmus@mindplay.dk (Rasmus Schultz)

--14dae9cfc8307bc5f704c5616239
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

using this particular version-numbering scheme, 1.01 is equal to 1.1 - I
don't think that's a bug, because the version-numbers in this
version-numbering scheme are integers, not decimals.

so I believe this is in fact as correct as it can be, since numbers like
"01" should not really be used in this version-numbering scheme, as it's
not an integer.

changing it is probably not a good idea, since comparisons like "1.10" and
"1.100" could potentially become really tricky - in the current
version-numbering scheme, 100 is greater than 10, but if these were
interpreted as decimals, they would be equal.

looks like I opened up pandora's box with this one ;-)

bottom line, I think, is that version_compare() should work for the
version-numbering scheme used by PHP, so that it works for checking the PHP
version-number. if you happen to use the same version-numbering scheme for
your PHP projects, good for you - if you don't, too bad... there are just
too many version-numbering schemes to support them all...


On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >     1.01 eq 1.1
>
> Could you explain this one to me?  In every versioning system I've ever
> used, 1.1 would be greater than 1.01, not equal.
>
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > >> For example, I was not the only one who found it odd that "1.0" is
> > > >> considered less than "1.0.0" - wouldn't it make sense to "pad" the
> > > shortest
> > > >> version-number with zeroes? e.g. "1.0" if compared against "1.0.0"
> > > would be
> > > >> padded with zeroes at the end, e.g. as "1.0.0".
> > >
> > > 1.0.0 and 1.0 are different things. If you want to make a comparison
> > > that takes into account only two components, you can just cut them both
> > > to two components, then compare.
> > > --
> > > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
> > > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
> > > (408)454-6900 ext. 227
> > >
>

--14dae9cfc8307bc5f704c5616239--