@vr... this is a little silly, isn't it?

[Kenneth Brody]

Quoting John Esak (Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:51:25 -0400):

>
> 5.0      @VR    Version number of *clerk/*report being run.  This is the
>                 full version number (ie: "4.8.01K3DN9") that can be moved
>                 into a (4,.1) field to get the major version (ie: "4.8")
>                 for comparisons.
>
> Now if the @vr variable came into existence in 5.0, why use 4.8.01K3DN9
> as an example version????
> How would this ever happen?  :-)

Because it really is available, though undocumented, in later 4.8.  You
are correct that it isn't much use in testing for less than the first
version in which it existed, which is why we left is undocumented until
the next version (ie: 5.0) was released.

The example might be less confusing if it used a 5.0 number, but since
"5.0.00" was the only version when 5.0 was released, it would be a very
boring example.

--
KenBrody at BestWeb dot net        spamtrap: <g8ymh8uf001 at sneakemail.com>
http://www.hvcomputer.com
http://www.fileProPlus.com