[jsr294-modularity-eg] dependency declaration syntax...

[Paul Benedict]

I thought the ill-fated JSR-277 once debated the use of + or - and
they were ultimately canned. The problem, IIRC, is that + or - did not
intuitively say whether they were inclusive or exclusive. And why have
2 different ways of doing the same thing?

Paul

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Alex Buckley <Alex.Buckley at sun.com> wrote:
> Yes. The EG knows that versions are often ranges. You can assume that a
> parser for any syntactic term representing a version will be capable of
> reading [](.,+- at least. This is why I used VER, not ID (identifier), in my
> grammar, since identifiers don't have commas and dots.
>
> Alex
>
> Mark Derricutt wrote:
>>
>> Do any of these schemes provide for version range declarations?  Ala
>> foo@[1.3,2.0) ?
>>
>> --
>> Discouragement is a dissatisfaction with the past, a distaste for the
>> present, and a distrust of the future - Maree De Jong, Life NZ.
>> http://www.talios.com
>>
>> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Bryan Atsatt <bryan.atsatt at oracle.com
>> <mailto:bryan.atsatt at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    2. Granularity + opaque string:
>>
>>      requires module foo at 1.3;
>>
>>    3. Granularity + unbounded key/value strings:
>>
>>      requires package name=bar, version=1.1, vendor=acme;
>>
>>
>