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
