From: Justin Collins <justincollins@...>
Date: 2009-02-12T17:54:20+09:00
Subject: [OT] Re: If you are unhappy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond

Joel VanderWerf wrote:
> Bill Kelly wrote:
>>
>> From: "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> As I remember it, Matz didn't want to have a version number like 1.8.10
>>
>> For what it's worth, my recollection is that matz wasn't
>> _conceptually_ opposed to it, but rather it was not considered
>> acceptable to break the existing code in the field which performed
>> version checks based on string compares:
>>
>>>> "1.8.9" > "1.8.8"
>> => true
>>
>>>> "1.8.10" > "1.8.9"
>> => false
>
> I remember that... did anyone ever suggest other number bases?
>
> irb(main):001:0> "1.8.9" > "1.8.8"
> => true
> irb(main):002:0> "1.8.A" > "1.8.8"
> => true
>
> Nah, too weird!
>

I was looking at Erlang the other day.
On the front page of erlang.org:

"Erlang/OTP R12B-5 released*"*



-Justin