View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
May 15, 2009
Re: What's the current state of D?
Leandro Lucarella:

>I think this is another problem with D, version naming is really confusing and lame. You can't know anything from a D version number.<

Yes, improving such small things is positive.
So I suggest to start using a "language.version.releaseStatus" numbering scheme for D2 (and maybe for D2 too).

So the current D2 becomes:
2.0.30alpha

and the current D1 becomes:
1.0.45

Once D2 gets out of alpha it may become:
2.1.0

Bye,
bearophile
May 17, 2009
Re: What's the current state of D?
bearophile wrote:
> Leandro Lucarella:
> 
>> I think this is another problem with D, version naming is really confusing and lame. You can't know anything from a D version number.<
> 
> Yes, improving such small things is positive.
> So I suggest to start using a "language.version.releaseStatus" numbering scheme for D2 (and maybe for D2 too).
> 
> So the current D2 becomes:
> 2.0.30alpha
> 
> and the current D1 becomes:
> 1.0.45
> 
> Once D2 gets out of alpha it may become:
> 2.1.0
> 
> Bye,
> bearophile

I don't think this is sufficient.  What we really need is to treat each
part of the version as a complex number.

In this way, non-stable releases can have imaginary components to
distinguish them from release versions.

So the current series of D 2.x compilers would become D 2i.x.  Release
candidates would be D 2i.xi.  And of course, a stable release which has
unreleased modifications could be D 1.x+yi

So much more intuitive than the current system plus a big, red label
reading "WARNING: not stable, do not use."

 -- Daniel
May 17, 2009
Re: What's the current state of D?
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Daniel Keep
<daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think this is sufficient.  What we really need is to treat each
> part of the version as a complex number.
>
> In this way, non-stable releases can have imaginary components to
> distinguish them from release versions.
>
> So the current series of D 2.x compilers would become D 2i.x.  Release
> candidates would be D 2i.xi.  And of course, a stable release which has
> unreleased modifications could be D 1.x+yi

Why restrict yourself to a two-dimensional complex plane when we have
quaternions and octonions?
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home