Re: Attributes 'Version and 'Body_Version

["Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk>]

"Robert Dewar" <dewar@gnat.com> wrote in message
news:5ee5b646.0111251830.61aaa6be@posting.google.com...
> "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<9trpj1$4e6v2$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>...
> > I think there's some mileage in the idea that it might be useful for
> > 'Version and 'Body_Version to (be able to) return something more than
just a
> > checksum (or the like).
>
> <<rest of peculiar ideas deleted :-)>>
>
> I am not sure I understand what on earth Nick was talking
> about here,

It's tempting to agree :-)

> but for sure it has nothing to do with the
> existing attributes (*)

What am I supposed to say? [pantomime chorus] "Oh, yes it does!"

> I think what happens here is that people see the word
> Version, and it triggers all kinds of entirely irrelevant
> baggage.
>
> The idea is that if two partitions share a package,
> ...

I know what the original idea was for the attributes.

> This is the *very limited* intention of these attributes,
> they are not in any sense relevant for the purposes of
> general version control, let alone the more extensive
> ideas that Nick presents.

But just because they were originally intended for a certain purpose,
doesn't mean they cannot be used for another purpose (in addition), does it?

> If any of these extended ideas have merit, I would suggest
> completely disentangling them from the existing attributes,
> starting by using entirely different names, otherwise you
> will perpetuate the confusion.

Far be it from me to wish to perpetuate any confusion, but often confusion
is a problem cured by good documentation, and doesn't necessarily require
new attributes.

> (*) by the way, MD-5 hash codes are indeed used to guarantee getting
> the right version of things on the
> internet (have a look at the Farber True Names patent
> for details of the idea).

I can guess the general idea, and I'm sure it could be very handy sometimes.
Sadly, the fact that the process is patented is probably not so handy.

In fact, the more important part of my post was the bit at the bottom, about
exporting service objects. I presume Robert wasn't commenting on that bit,
and I hope nobody loses sight of the importance of that technique.

--
Best wishes,
Nick Roberts