Stewart Gordon wrote:
> 
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
> 
> > Time is running out.  Or rather, version numbers are running out.  (That is, unless my suggestion of 0.01 increments from now on is implemented.)
> <snip>
> 
> Oops ... how did that one slip past?  We've been going in 0.01 increments all along.  It's 0.001 increments we need.
> 
> But as said, it does depend on whether DMD version numbers are decimal.
>   But even if 0.100 follows 0.99, it'll appear to go up in 0.001 from
> then on.

There is another possibility that is less ugly.

Count 0.90, 0.901, 0.902 ... 0.999 and you
win another 90 revisions without break fp >.

-- 
Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at
Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

Helmut Leitner wrote:

<snip>
> There is another possibility that is less ugly.
> 
> Count 0.90, 0.901, 0.902 ... 0.999 and you
> win another 90 revisions without break fp >.

That's exactly what I meant in the first place.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.