[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Warning: Tree raster can hang you
- To: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Warning: Tree raster can hang you
- From: Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <gaia@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 13:34:04 +0300
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1000716060728.29778K-100000@fuga>; from lukka@xxxxxx on Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 06:09:11AM +0300
- Mail-followup-to: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
- References: <20000716132322.D14285@xxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.3.96.1000716060728.29778K-100000@fuga>
- Sender: Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <ajk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 06:09:11AM +0300, Tuomas J. Lukka wrote:
> But there's a standards problem: some people have used
> and other use them as numbers; 0.11 is between 0.1 and 0.2.
> It's common enough to make me want to avoid it.
True. Nevertheless, in my own programs I've used the first scheme with
> > (Think of 0.10 being newer than 0.9.)
> Yuck. NEVER.
What's the problem (beyond the above)? You just need to consider the
version number as consisting of period-separated natural number fields.
This is, for example, the version scheme imposed by dpkg on packages
(except that dpkg uses alphanumeric fields).
> > > 0.0.1: I dislike non-floating-point versions.
> > And I dislike floating-point versions :-)
> For what reason?
I'll quote you: "yuck". It's a personal preference.
> > > Any reason in particular to use those?
> > It's just that it's more standard. (At least where I come from.)
> 0.01 is pretty much standard on CPAN.
Perl (including the stuff on CPAN) is about the only one using this
Anyway, it's your and Ted's call.
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % gaia@xxxxxx % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%