On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 16:29, Andrew Whitworth <[email protected]> wrote: > My only point was that for the detractors, a whimsical naming scheme > isn't the only possible one that moves us away from X.Y.Z and > potentially includes the small amount of information we do need to > convey. Something that does use the year instead of a random name does > have the benefit that it could be made fixed-width and therefore > easily usable in things like bytecode. Not that this is a huge selling > point. > sorry, no, the parrot version number will never be fixed-width, in bytecode or elsewhere. this was tried in the 60's, and i cleaned up too damned many 2-digit dates in other people's ancient production code on wall street in 1999 to go with a fixed-width date/release/version format ever again.
~jerry _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
