• Wu Yongwei <Wu_member pathlink.com> Feb 26 2003
• "Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> Feb 26 2003
• "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Feb 27 2003

Wu Yongwei <Wu_member pathlink.com> writes:

I see that though DMC now has version 8.32.17n, the version number of SC is
still 8.29n.  When will version number be increased?  I suppose the current way
might confuse some people.

Best regards,

Wu Yongwei

"Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> writes:

scppn.exe bears the latest version.

This seems to be a regular area of confusion. Any reasons why sc.exe/dnc.exe
can't be updated to correspond to the DMC++ version as a whole, Walter?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wu Yongwei" <Wu_member pathlink.com>
Newsgroups: c++
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 2:44 PM
Subject: SC version number


 I see that though DMC now has version 8.32.17n, the version number of SC


 still 8.29n.  When will version number be increased?  I suppose the


 might confuse some people.

 Best regards,

 Wu Yongwei

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> wrote in message
news:b3k7md$l2s$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 scppn.exe bears the latest version.

 This seems to be a regular area of confusion. Any reasons why


 can't be updated to correspond to the DMC++ version as a whole, Walter?


Everything that changes increases the testing time and risk of inadvertant
breakage. I try not to change things just to change a version number. The
correct version number of the whole package is the vXXX file in \dm.