From: transfire@...
Date: 2006-08-04T01:25:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Next Major Version (was Re: Different semantics of Proc and method call -- bug or feature?)


James Edward Gray II wrote:
> 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

Which is another good reason for Ruby to have an actual Tuple class.

T.