Re: [PATCH 1/1] Factor out a common pattern into a procedure.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Ian Denhardt <address@hidden> skribis:

> How about this: separate it out into to functions: version-prefix, which
> is the same as what I have now, but takes a (mandatory) argument
> specifying the number of fields, and feature-version, which is defined
> like:
>
>     (define (feature-version version) (version-prefix version 2))
>
> ..with an appropriate docstring explaining the use case. Thoughts?

Sounds good to me, although I’d rather call ‘feature-version’, say,
‘version-major+minor’, on the grounds that the semantics of version
numbers are specific to each project.  Mark?

(Please forgive the extra bikeshedding.  ;-))

Thanks,
Ludo’.