Re: Ti-92 ver 1.11 new at Office Depot, too old ver? Help!
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Ti-92 ver 1.11 new at Office Depot, too old ver? Help!
On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Bryan Rabeler wrote:
) Daniel Reed wrote:
) > Erm, I believe that the convention is, with version numbers, if only one
) > period is given, it is interpreted as a decimal; if two or more are given,
) > they're interpreted just as deliminators, so 1.12 would be less new than
) > 1.2, which could be expressed as 1.20. However, 1.0.12 would be
) > significantly newer than 1.0.2, because the period in that case was simply
) > used to separate the parts of the version.
) > Of course, I don't know in this case, and so it may in fact be "one point
) > twelve" and not "one point one two," but it shouldn't be :)
) TI uses a strange version numbering scheme when doing the ROM versions.
Great. Another non-conformer :P
) The
) number after the decimal point is not really supposed to be interpreted as a
) decimal, its supposed to be interpreted as an integer. In my opinion however,
) 1.0.2 is newer than 1.0.12.
Er, then you're telling me that the Linux kernel version 2.0.4 is newer
than version 2.0.31? Here's a hint: 2.0.4 was released July 8th 1996, and
.31 was released just a couple weeks ago (October 17th 1997).
When periods are used multiple times, they are most definately being used
as deliminators, separators, not as decimal points. The three numbers are
just that--three independent numbers. 2.0.4 could be represented as
02.00.04, and 2.0.31 could be 02.00.31.
However, with only one period, I would assume it to be a decimal point,
and thus 2.4 *would* be a newer kernel than 2.31, as 2.4 could be shown as
2.40...
--
Daniel Reed <n@narnia.n.ml.org>
System administrator of narnia.n.ml.org (narnia.mhv.net [199.0.0.118])
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils. --
Hector Berlioz
Follow-Ups:
References: