Inc is probably a better way to say that, yeah. I also agree with David that 2.0 has a popular connotation of shiny-ness that came with the whole infamous Web 2.0 branding phenomenon.
I am now at conflict internally, because I'd like to see Clojure widely adopted, but I like the idea of the language having the agility to do radical things to make itself better in a way that Java no longer posses. So 1.3 still has its advantages. Clojure always has the choice to stay the transition to semantic versioning until Rich feels that it's at a place that semantic versioning makes sense. I believe I've thought myself in a circle and need some hammock time on this. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
