# [tex-implementors] Re: [tex-live] LM as the default outline font?

Gavin McCullagh gavin at celt.dias.ie
Tue Mar 29 19:39:22 CEST 2005

Hi,

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Philip TAYLOR wrote:

> /Some/ software authors may say; others may say that if 0.1 has
> been released, then there will never be a V0.10 (although
> there may well be a V0.11).  These same authors would
> happily accept that that 0.2 > 0.1 /and/ 0.2 > 0.11

I daresay that may.  That doesn't change the convention.  This mailing list
speaks English.  If we didn't obey that convention things might get a
little difficult.

> >Subsubversions are done with an extra full stop.  This full stop is not a
> >floating point, it's just a delimiter.
>
> Yes, I have no problem with that : V0.1.1 > V0.1
> However, would you assert that V0.1.0 > V0.1 ?

I think it would be unlikely that both would exist.  However I would assert
that V0.11.0 > V0.1 and V0.11.0 > V0.1.1 > V0.1.0

The point of the . as delimiter is that each number is not a real but an
integer.

> However, Staszek is not using such a scheme, it would
> appear to me : he is using a simple real number,
> expressed to whatever number of digits seems to him
> and his co-autho0rs to best reflect the degree of
> difference from any preceding version.

No, he's using an integer delimited with dots.  You'll see this same
behaviour in the sectioning commands in LaTeX.

> Is perhaps even predicated on it.  However, what the Unix "ls"
> command does is neither here nor there : it may be of interest
> to Unix users, and it may well be beneficial for Unix users
> to number their packages in accordance with a scheme with which
> "ls" can cope, but that is surely of no concern to people such
> as Staszek et al, implementing /portable/ software which need
> pay no lip service to any one operating system's conventions ...

Human beings do not count:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,991,992

this is platform agnostic.

> In the Unix world.  Nowhere else, as far as I know, and
> certainly not according to the generally accepted
> principles of real arithmetic.

Consult The LaTeX Comanion Section 11.10 which comes after 11.9.  Try

section numbering in MS Word, LaTeX, OpenOffice
version numbering in CVS, SVN,

>  While of course everyone is in a position to break
> >conventions, it is not generally a good idea.
>
> But as you yourself point out, this is a Unix convention.

No I pointed out that it was a software convention and gave an example in
unix.  I don't think dir in Win32 has such a rich syntax and Microsoft
certainly don't tend to number things consistently, they do it for
marketing.

> Staszek is not, as far as I can tell, offering anything
> that is Unix-specific.

I never said he was.

> >Knuth's numbering scheme is consistent with the above.  He just skips an
> >awful lot of possible version numbers.
>
> For all $v$, $v \in <the set of possible TeX version numbers>$,
> v' > v follows the rules of real arithmetic.  Knuth doesn't /skip/
> version numbers, he restricts himself to a well-defined subset.

His numbering scheme is consistent with both scenarios.  That doesn't make
either of the above wrong.

> >Even LaTeX does this with its sectioning commands.
>
> Yes, with embedded period : as I said above, I have no problem with
> such a numbering scheme.

No without.

section 1.10 > 1.2 in LaTeX.

Gavin