caret operator accepts a set of versions #5906
Conversation
build-depends: network ^>= { 2.6.3.6, 2.7.0.2, 2.8.0.0, 3.0.1.0 }
|
@tseenshe look at leading-comma tests in https://github.com/haskell/cabal/tree/master/Cabal/tests/ParserTests/errors and https://github.com/haskell/cabal/tree/master/Cabal/tests/ParserTests/regressions (note that only And after you make a first commit, you'll need to |
| -- plain version without tags or wildcards | ||
| verPlain :: CabalParsing m => m Version | ||
| verPlain = mkVersion <$> P.sepBy1 P.integral (P.char '.') | ||
|
|
||
| -- either wildcard or normal version | ||
| verOrWild :: CabalParsing m => m (Bool, Version) | ||
| verOrWild = do |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@hvr if you look at this, this doesn't differentiate between 01.02.03 and 1.2.3 given different cabal-version.
I'll change that, hopefully nothing slipped on Hackage
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/Cabal-2.4.1.0/docs/src/Distribution.Types.Version.html#line-99
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See also #5138 where we took some measures to prevent denorm versions hitting hackage
| base ==1 || ==2, | ||
| base ==1.2, | ||
| base ==1.2 || ==3.4, | ||
| ghc ==8.6.3 || ==8.4.4 || ==8.2.2 || ==8.0.2 || ==7.10.3 || ==7.8.4 || ==7.6.3 || ==7.4.2, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ooh, hmm...
@hvr should we introduce a VersionRange constructor for set notation? I'd say yes. And can do it after this is merged.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We'd need NonEmpty to do it, so it's "a bit" tricky
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The main benefit would be for syntactical round tripping, wouldn't it? Don't we already have other cases such as -none where we have a syntactically lossy encoding?
I wonder if we should instead go for having two different datatypes, one for the concrete parsetree (which is better for error reporting and/or pretty printing), and one for the desugared abstract syntax tree (which is more convenient for computations). The current VersionRange type is a bit inconsistent in this regard IMO (i.e. it has support for representing parens which are imo redundant for an expression tree, but otoh it lacks the ability to represent -none directly).
In any case, I think we should discuss this in a new separate "design ticket" and we also still have the issue of having to handle pkg-config version-ranges which might be related.
I've found the
^>=operator to be quite verbose to use when I am supporting multiple ghcs (or stackage snapshots). I found this cool post from ages ago https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/7tykqi/should_stackage_ignore_version_bounds/dtgp0v0 which looked good. e.g.I don't know how to write a test. Somebody please help?
Please include the following checklist in your PR:
Please also shortly describe how you tested your change. Bonus points for added tests!