G'day all.
> > Why is it GHC "5.02.2", "5.03" etc.? Wouldn't it be easier
> > with "5.2.2", "5.3"?
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 11:44:03AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> I don't know, probably historical reasons: as far as I can remember,
> GHC's version numbers always had two digits after the decima
> Well, I figured it out myself in the end... it's gcc dodginess :/
>
> numberToInt checks the number that's been read against
> minBound :: Int.
> In the 64-bit STG C code this ends up being:
>
> _Cak7_=(-9223372036854775808)<=(I_)(R1.p[1]);
>
> If I were to read the gcc warnings it would sa
> Why is it GHC "5.02.2", "5.03" etc.? Wouldn't it be easier
> with "5.2.2", "5.3"?
I don't know, probably historical reasons: as far as I can remember,
GHC's version numbers always had two digits after the decimal point.
For historians, here is the announcement of the first release of GHC
(0.06
