From: Charles Thornton <ceo@...>
Date: 2006-11-20T22:10:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond.

Robert Dober wrote:
>
>
> On 11/16/06, *Eric Hodel* <drbrain@segment7.net 
> <mailto:drbrain@segment7.net>> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>     Letters in versions is not without precedent.
>
>
> Yes Eric , but I would consider 3.0.2b a subversion of 3.0.2 and I 
> would think 3.0.2b < 3.0.3
> I would correctly? assuem 3.0.2.b < 3.0.3.a of course, still I guess 
> I'll go with the 3.0.9 is followed by 3.0.10 and until all  dates are 
> written in ISO format so that I can string compare them I guess this 
> should not really be an issue ;)
>
> The *only* practical solution is to use base 42 numbers!!!
>
What?  Microsoft only works with Base 17!