Re: Funny Comparison with Float

Even a two-part System.Version has one advantage over string or numeric
alternatives: what to call the tenth version. Assuming the ninth was called 1.9,
1.10 works fine for System.Version, but it's not so good for numeric
representations. If you had the foresight to number the first version 1.01, then
the issue won't arise till the hundredth version (or the thousandth if you
started at 1.001, etc.).

Sometimes people get sloppy when referring to versions, writing "1.3" when
"1.03" would be more accurate. System.Version forgives that sort of sloppiness.

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of development on the .NET platform using any managed language
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Nicholson
Sent: Friday, March 7, 2008 10:13 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [DOTNET-CLR] Funny Comparison with Float

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:22:18 +0000, Jon Skeet <[email protected]> wrote:

>Rich Armstrong wrote:
>> Jon Skeet wrote:
>>>> Assuming it's a version number in a normal kind of way, it should
really
>>>> be a decimal (or a string).
>>
>> ... or even a System.Version.
>
>Well, that depends on what it's versioning. If you're versioning
>something which has nothing to do with .NET, and only needs a major and
>minor number, I'm not sure I'd use a version number with 4 parts where
>the class describes itself in terms of versioning a CLR assembly.
>
>I'm sure it would work, but it also has disadvantages such as ToString()
>including the two unnecessary parts.
>
>Jon

I didn't even know there was such a class, but looking at the docs you can
keep it to two parts if you want (including ToString()).

David.

===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentorR  http://www.develop.com

View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com

===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentor®  http://www.develop.com

View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com