From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
From: Jonathan Wakely <cow@compsoc.man.ac.uk>
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:55:37AM -0400, Rob Stewart wrote:
What's to stop any compiler from using a 3 digit version number sometime in the future? Yes, GCC has moved on to 4.x, so there's no 3.x version even close to that, and there aren't likely to be (m)any more 2.x releases, but if you are going to choose a convention, it ought to account for forseeable problems, right?
Unless it makes things too hard to read. With typically seven digits in a number it gets hard to divide them into groups of 3.
It isn't *that* hard, but I do understand your point.
Note that all the numbers above are wrong because they're octal. You can't use a leading zero, so typically we'll be looking at 5 digits.
That goes to show how often I write octal! I'd forgotten that. We could prepend a 1 to all such numbers, just so they can have leading zeroes for all components. That makes them longer still, of course.
what's-to-stop-them-from-using-a-4-digit-number-ly y'rs,
That's always possible, but terribly unlikely, especially in light of arguments suggesting three digit numbers were unlikely. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;