Re^2: Perl usage (version number)

from perlmod (v5.14)

               # set the version for version checking
               $VERSION     = 1.00;
               # if using RCS/CVS, this may be preferred
               $VERSION = sprintf "%d.%03d", q$Revision: 1.1 $ =~ /(\d
++)/g;
[download]

compare CVS revisions

So its a way to generate a module's $VERSION number from the version control system's revision number.

...well...

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)

Je suis Charlie!}

Comment on Re^2: Perl usage (version number) Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Perl usage (version number) by dsheroh (Monsignor) on Nov 23, 2015 at 08:21 UTC
Ah, yes, right... That shook loose some ancient information, from back when I was using CVS. As I recall, CVS has some magic such that $Revision nnn$ will be automatically updated, replacing `nnn` will the current CVS revision number each time you check the file in. The rest of the code is to extract the number from the string $Revision nnn$ and reformat it so that each number (after the first) is displayed as two digits. So $Revision 1.2.3.4.5$ becomes `1.02.03.04.05`.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: Perl usage (version number) by LanX (Saint) on Nov 23, 2015 at 16:14 UTC
> So $Revision 1.2.3.4.5$ becomes 1.02.03.04.05. well , yes, except it doesn't `DB<30> p $VERSION = do { my @r = (q$Revision: 1.2.3.4.5 $ =~ /\d+/g) +; sprintf "%d."."%02d" x $#r, @r }; 1.02030405` [download] That's what I meant with different version formats and potential bug. IMHO $VERSION is supposed to be a float which can be compared numerically with < , == and >. There is some mention of a version object, but this seems to be restricted to Perl's own Version. `DB<34> use Data::Dump qw/dd/ DB<35> dd $] 5.016003 DB<36> dd $^V bless({ original => "v5.16.3", qv => 1, version => [5, 16, 3] }, +"version")` [download] Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :) Je suis Charlie!}	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^5: Perl usage (version number) by dsheroh (Monsignor) on Nov 24, 2015 at 07:54 UTC
Ouch... Yes, I was a bit too hasty and assumed the actual output would be in the format I expected it to generate. Thanks for correcting my mistake!	[reply]