
30 Oct
2014
30 Oct
'14
10:57 a.m.
now that you remind me: may i make a related suggestion to change the wording in the explanation of the lexicographic ordering: Instead of "For example, 2.1 > 1.3, and 2.1.1 > 2.1." Write "For example, 2.0.0 > 1.3.2, and 2.0.1.0 > 2.0.1." for two reasons 1) an example following the A.B.C definition should have three components (even if we just define "lexicographical" independent of number-of-components; it is mistakable) 2) i once assumed that a.b == a.b.0 ; this change would prevent such. (Or is there any reason against using trailing zeros?)