For the record, before you down-vote, check the other comments. I am from an European country where we "officially" use "," as the decimal point (so yes, I know it might not be universally true, at least not in theory), yet my bank uses ".", and so do people (many, at least). In IT, it always has been ".", too. Of course in elementary school (>20 years ago) we used "," as the decimal point, FWIW. :P It might still be the practice there.

Probably the best way to handle this is the way SI recommends dot vs comma be handled in scientific and technical writing. Their recommendation is to use a thin space for grouping, so if you see a dot or comma it is the decimal separator.

€50.000 and €50,000 would then both be exactly €50. If you meant €50000 and wanted to separate the thousands you would would write €50 000 (which looks ugly on HN because HN turns thin space into regular space).

Update: actually, SI used to recommend thin space. Now they just say space without saying what kind of space. Some people recommend choosing narrow non-breaking space (U+202F) (which HN also turns into regular space).

Also, for 4 digit numbers before the decimal they recommend not separating them, so 5k Euros would be €5000 not €5 000.

This scheme was moved away from with Windows 10, which switched to a year/month versioning scheme (so the first W10 update was version 1511, as it was released in November 2015), then to the current "halves" system.

I would check what GNU's vercmp and Arch's vercmp would say, but I have no access to them right now.

I mean, even v-strings themselves ... despite being called version strings, they're different from `version` objects/declarations, and can be used in ways I expect most non-Perl devs might consider unexpected, for example if you run this:

     perl -C2 -E 'say v102.111.111, v128513'

This is 100% classic perl: the default is bonkers and unintuitive, but the behaviour also changes in a DWIM manner to throw people off. And of course there are two different ways to represent versions so simply forgetting the v (one character) can cause a litany of bugs.

The new scheme is fine. They are correct to describe it as semver-compatible — they assess that every time they add functionality it is backwards-incompatible, and their backwards-compatible changes are inherently just bugfixes. And they are correct that Firefox version numbers have been doing the same thing, and thus their way is not unique.

The old cryptography version numbers were not "floating point numbers" (as demonstrated by the fact that they often had two decimal points). They were just incorrectly using the major and minor parts of a version number to communicate what changed between releases. They weren't doing anything like expecting version 1.11 to be treated as older than version 1.2. I can't fathom how this is supposed to have broken CI pipelines.

So we went from v0 to v10, then to v11, then v15, and so on?