Re: 10.4.9 versus 10.4.10
Re: 10.4.9 versus 10.4.10
- Subject: Re: 10.4.9 versus 10.4.10
- From: "Mark J. Reed" <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:04:21 -0400
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Mark J. Reed <email@hidden> wrote:
> there any examples other than 10.4.10? Was there a 10.x.10 for any
> earlier release of OS X?)
Or even an x.y.10 for any Classic version?
It's kind of strange that it didn't work for 10.4.10. I mean,
presumably the whole point of turning "10.5.2" into "1052 base 16"
instead of just using decimal 1052 is so you can go higher than 9 for
each component. But perhaps, given far back the feature goes, it was
always intended to be binary-coded decimal, and the goal was simply
efficiency: you can mask out the fields you want with fast bitwise
ops, no division required.
--
Mark J. Reed <email@hidden>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
AppleScript-Users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
Archives: http://lists.apple.com/archives/applescript-users
This email sent to email@hidden