From: "Timothy J. Wood" <tjw@...>
Date: 2006-11-17T01:50:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond.


On Nov 16, 2006, at 6:47 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote:

> I've been thinking about how version numbers are restricting what we  
> can do.
> We are having difficulties releasing 1.8.x because x can only be in  
> [6789]
> before we run out of numbers.  Similarly, 1.9 will be the upper  
> limit of
> the 1.y series.

   Version numbers are often (even typically?) treated as a series of  
integers, so version 1.10.973 is perfectly legitimate as long as your  
comparison logic is correct.  Is there some reason this won't work for  
Ruby?  It seems like it would be easy to have a built in 'Version'  
class to deal with this (we have an ObjC version in our OmniFoundation  
framework that could be used as a starting point, but it's pretty  
simple :)

-tim