From octave-maintainers-request at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu Sat Dec  7 08:45:41 2002
Subject: Re: CVS Octave is now Pix-free
From: Paul Kienzle <pkienzle at jazz dot ncnr dot nist dot gov>
To: "John W. Eaton" <jwe at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu>
Cc: octave-maintainers at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 09:44:35 -0500

There is always version number, except of course that version number
isn't an integer.  Would you care to define 

#define _VERNUM(major,minor,patch) ((major*100 + minor)*1000 + patch)
#define OCTAVE_VERNUM _VERNUM(OCTAVE_MAJOR,OCTAVE_MINOR,OCTAVE_PATCHLEVEL)

Then we can do:

#if OCTAVE_VERNUM > _VERNUM(2,1,40)
...
#else
...
#endif

That allows for a 3 digit patch level, a 2 digit minor version and a
4 digit major version.  Room for growth for the next 50k years, no?

That allows us to do simple tests without a configure script.  Unfortunately
it interferes with readability: to understand the code you have to know
what was added in which version.  Maybe this is not such a good idea.

- Paul

On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 09:24:10PM -0600, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On  6-Dec-2002, Paul Kienzle <pkienzle at jazz dot ncnr dot nist dot gov> wrote:
> 
> | What to check for is pretty easy: the octave header that is no longer.
> 
> Sure, I was thinking about some test we could use in the code that
> wouldn't require a configure test.
> 
> jwe