Re: [Quantlib-dev] QuantLib 1.0 beta 1 available

[Luigi B. <lui...@gm...>]

On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 13:53 +0100, Ferdinando Ametrano wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <ed...@de...> wrote:
> >  i)   the version number propagated from configure.ac is not of the a.b.c
> >      form, maybe we should stick with that (eg. 1.0.0 ?)
> 
> I would prefer to stick with 1.0.0 too, but I look forward to Luigi's
> 1.0 arguments

Looking forward to it? You won't be disappointed. I have a rational,
well-thought and cogent argument for the 1.0 form. It goes like this:

    1.0.0 is ugly.

But maybe I'm missing something. What would the explicit second 0 give
us that an implied one doesn't?

Later,
	Luigi


-- 

There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published
opinion. 
-- Winston Churchill