4 ms·

Could you explain that?, because if you're right I been wrong my whole life.

by taytus 14y ago

bpierre 14y ago
<integer>.<integer>
- sjwright 14y ago
  In other words, not <integral>.<fractional> This should be fairly clear given your typical version number takes the form of <integer>.<integer>.<integer> which can't possibly be mistaken for a decimal fraction.
  - masklinn 14y ago
    > This should be fairly clear given your typical version number takes the form of <integer>.<integer>.<integer> With letters, short hashes or even whole words thrown in.
jackbravo 14y ago
here, the dot is not used to separate integers from decimals, just to separate two integer numbers. This is common practice in software projects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Incrementing_sequences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Incrementin...)
- homeomorphic 14y ago
  That's not the role of the dot in ordinary decimal expansions either. There its role is to mark where the sequence transitions from positive powers of ten (to its left) to negative powers of ten (to its right).
adlpz 14y ago
Version numbers are not numbers. How would you explain, for example, Chrome's version 24.0.1312.57? Dots separate logical numberings, like version, patch, bugfix, etc. So 3.0 goes after 2.0 And 2.0.2 after 2.0.1. And 1.10 after 1.9.
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
  ´n.n.n.n´ where the dot does not represent decimal notation but a less significant variation (of the software) than the previous number. This is universally true for the first two numbers but not always for the rest.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
masklinn 14y ago
http://semver.org/ http://semver.org/ the version number is a tuple, not a decimal, encoded with dots as field separators. 0.10 is an encoding for (0, 10). So 0.10 > 0.9, and 3.7.4a makes perfect sense. edit: furthermore version number ordering has additional complexity: 3.7.4a < 3.7.4
jordan0day 14y ago
It probably would have been better to say v0.10 != v0.1, since obviously "0.10 != 0.1" is a misleading statement.
- taytus 14y ago
  Thank you all for your explanations, but this was exactly what I meant.
  - libria 14y ago
    Please don't do this; it's annoying and unnecessary. The context for untog's comment was quite clear. A lot of folks wasted time trying to clarify something for you.

Could you explain that?, because if you're right I been wrong my whole life.

by taytus 14y ago

Could you explain that?, because if you're right I been wrong my whole life.

bpierre 14y ago

sjwright 14y ago
In other words, not <integral>.<fractional> This should be fairly clear given your typical version number takes the form of <integer>.<integer>.<integer> which can't possibly be mistaken for a decimal fraction.
- masklinn 14y ago
  > This should be fairly clear given your typical version number takes the form of <integer>.<integer>.<integer> With letters, short hashes or even whole words thrown in.

jackbravo 14y ago

here, the dot is not used to separate integers from decimals, just to separate two integer numbers. This is common practice in software projects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Incrementing_sequences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Incrementin...)

homeomorphic 14y ago
That's not the role of the dot in ordinary decimal expansions either. There its role is to mark where the sequence transitions from positive powers of ten (to its left) to negative powers of ten (to its right).

adlpz 14y ago

Version numbers are not numbers. How would you explain, for example, Chrome's version 24.0.1312.57? Dots separate logical numberings, like version, patch, bugfix, etc. So 3.0 goes after 2.0 And 2.0.2 after 2.0.1. And 1.10 after 1.9.

jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
´n.n.n.n´ where the dot does not represent decimal notation but a less significant variation (of the software) than the previous number. This is universally true for the first two numbers but not always for the rest.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

masklinn 14y ago

http://semver.org/ http://semver.org/ the version number is a tuple, not a decimal, encoded with dots as field separators. 0.10 is an encoding for (0, 10). So 0.10 > 0.9, and 3.7.4a makes perfect sense. edit: furthermore version number ordering has additional complexity: 3.7.4a < 3.7.4

jordan0day 14y ago

It probably would have been better to say v0.10 != v0.1, since obviously "0.10 != 0.1" is a misleading statement.

taytus 14y ago
Thank you all for your explanations, but this was exactly what I meant.
- libria 14y ago
  Please don't do this; it's annoying and unnecessary. The context for untog's comment was quite clear. A lot of folks wasted time trying to clarify something for you.