From: James Edward Gray II <james@...>
Date: 2006-08-04T00:30:51+09:00
Subject: Re: Next Major Version (was Re: Different semantics of Proc and method call -- bug or feature?)

On Aug 3, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Rick DeNatale wrote:

> On 8/2/06, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In message "Re: Next Major Version (was Re: Different semantics of  
>> Proc and method call -- bug or feature?)"
>>     on Thu, 3 Aug 2006 00:38:41 +0900, "N Okia"  
>> <wrecklass1@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> |In keeping with your current numbering scheme, does this mean there
>> |will be a ruby 1.10 release?
>>
>> The version letters will be stay in one letter each, so that 1.a will
>> be more likely than 1.10.
>>
>>                                                         matz.
>
> Matz,
>
> I hesitate to ask YOU this, but are you really sure you want to go  
> that way.
>
> Almost every software package I've run across keeps each level of the
> version "number" as a number, so 1.10 would be much more in line with
> standard practice than 1.a

But it can't be compared properly using Ruby operators:

 >> "1.8.5" < "1.10.0"
=> false

James Edward Gray II