t.version

[miko]

I have opened this up as ticket #299 on the issue tracker.

Miko, I referred to your parsing statement. But I took off the final "%.", which is superfluous.

Except in cases like 0.8.0-BETA6 OK, maybe this is not relevant. Anyways, thanks for creating the ticket.

[hryx]

Sorry for digging up this somewhat old thread. I'm not very regularly active on forums.

Anyway, just to update about the ticket: Bart marked it invalid, but I don't quite understand why. It seems like either I'm misunderstanding something or he is. Or maybe my explanation was unclear.

Can anyone chime in on this topic, either in this thread or on the Bitbucket ticket? I don't want to annoy the devs by just opening it up again without a convincing reason...

[bartbes]

t.version was never used, and as such no code existed treating it either way. Saying it was a number or a string was simply a thing with documentation, not with the code.

[hryx]

Right, but will it be used in future versions of Love? What I was proposing is not a matter of how it should be documented, but how it should be treated by Love. The fact that it isn't used at all yet makes this the perfect time to figure out how it could/should be handled.

So, I was making a suggestion for how Love should handle it. If there are no plans for it, or it's just decorative, then I don't believe it belongs in love.conf.

[Robin]

Actually, in the 0.8.0 boot.lua shows that it is being used, in the way proposed in the issue report.

(By the way, I think there should be a break after compat = true.)

[bartbes]

But that was after. At the time it was a non-issue. (See what I did there?)

[hryx]

But that was after. At the time it was a non-issue. (See what I did there?)

Very clever.

Thanks for pointing out the boot.lua, Robin.

I updated the wiki page.