On 31 May 2002, at 0:40, P Witte wrote:
> > Except the counting is somewhat exotic. I mean if we go from decimal to hex > then the next number after 2.99 is 2.64 which is rather confusing, hence my > suggestion 2$64. The problem with that is that the separator gets stripped off under some cimcumstances and is replaced with a letter showing the language or whatever - when I type "print ver$(1)", I get back "2G99"... I personally would favour 3.00 (and no, there's no problem with that number!) to mark the new start - but to be quite frank, I couldn't care less - if everybody favour 2.9A - why not? Wolfgang Wolfgang If we pretend to assume that the counting always was in hex > then 2.9A would be more logical. 2.A0 might imply that were starting all > over again - which we are in a way - but then 3.00 seems just as good. > > Please lets not start a war over this ;) It was only meant as a bit of fun. > > Per > >
