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

David Kastrup dak at gnu.org
Wed Mar 30 12:32:02 CEST 2005

Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk> writes:

> If we look at the evolution of TeX82 prior to
> V3, we see that Knuth adopted the following
> version numbers :
> 	0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9,
> 	0.91, 0.92, 0.93, 0.94, 0.95, 0.96, 0.97, 0.98, 0.99,
> 	0.999, 0.9999, 0.99999, 0.999999,
> 	1.0 (I stop at this point)
> Now, /if/ Knuth believed that the second element was an
> integer, why did he not use V0.10 after V0.9, then V0.11
> and so on ?

The thing to note is that he has been smart enough not to commit
himself either way.  His versioning system does not meet the
"unfortunate" criterion.  His version numbers sort as integer fields,
lexicographically, and as real numbers.

He'll have to blow his cover after releasing


Will then the next version be


(in which case the "real" version number idea will be disproven) or


> I argue that his numbering unequivocally indicates that
> he was treating version numbers as reals : the use
> of an increasing number of significant digits,
> as in 0.99, 0.999, ...0.999999 is clearly intended
> to indicate the closeness of the release to the
> (future) announcement of a putative V1.0 (which
> eventually we see).

And I argue that Knuth is definitely one of the least relevant
authorities with regard to software engineering and particularly
version numbers in cooperative environments, anyway, so I wonder why
you would bring him up here.  I certainly would not want to suggest
that we should, say, put LM into a versioning system 1.6, 1.61, 1.618,


> At this point I stop and rest my case :

And I hope this is where it stays.  I don't see the relevancy for
TeX-implementors, anyway.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

More information about the tex-live mailing list