[m-rev.] for review: new module mdprof_CSS_above_threshold

[Julien Fischer]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Zoltan Somogyi wrote:

> On 19-Oct-2006, Jerome Tannier <jerome.tannier at student.fundp.ac.be> wrote:
>>>> +        lookup_bool_option(Options, version, Version),
>>>> +        ( Version = yes ->
>>>> +            io.format("%s Version 1.0\n", [s(ProgName)], !IO)
>>>
>>> The version number should not be hardcoded as 1.0 there.  For
>>> consistency with the rest of the the Mercury tools the version "number"
>>> should the string returned by predicate library.version/1.
>>>
>>
>> Fixed.
>
> Actually, it *should* be 1.0. The version of the standard library has nothing
> to do with which version of this tool you are executing; I expect this tool
> to evolve significantly faster than the release schedule of Mercury as a whole.

I would expect this tool to report the same version as the other tools, 
e.g. rotd-2006-10-18, which is what library.version/1 gives you.  mmc
and mprof both do this (and most of the other tools probably should)
Among other things, I think that not doing this has the potential to
complicate bug reports from users.

Note: this doesn't mean you can't have a separate version number for the
format of the feedback file, as we do with the Deep.data files, but
it should be separate from that reported by mdprof_feedback --version.

Julien.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-reviews at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-reviews at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-reviews-request at csse.unimelb.edu.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------