0 in version number?

[bitwise via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 18 October 2015 at 03:28:28 UTC, Shriramana Sharma 
wrote:
> bitwise wrote:
>
>> Not sure what you're getting at either.
>
> By `ls -v1` I was illustrating that directory listing utilities 
> are capable of sorting numbers meaningfully, so there is no 
> need for leading zeroes for *that* purpose...

Ok, gotcha. My answer was a bit of a shot in the dark, but the 
point was that a transition to a more normal looking versioning 
system could be made at 2.1 without compromising the logical 
ordering of the version numbers.

Looking at semver.org though, it seems that the major version 
should be incremented for every version that's not backward 
compatible, which basically makes it impossible for D to conform 
to that versioning system at present. With rangification of 
phobos, the removal of std.stream, the endless supply of breaking 
DIPs, etc, D will be at 100.0.0 by next year.. ;)

      Bit