From: Peter Duniho on
CSharpner wrote:
> On May 3, 11:29 am, Peter Duniho <no.peted.s...(a)no.nwlink.spam.com>
> wrote:
>> CSharpner wrote:
>>> When .NET upgraded from 2.0 to 3.0 (and again to 3.5), 3.0 and 3.5
>>> weren't really totally new versions of .NET. They required 2.0 to be
>>> there and were more of an extension or and add-on to 2.0.
>>>
>>> What about .NET 4.0? Is it a complete framework all on its own? Or
>>> does it require 2.0 (and/or 3.x)?
>>
>> The former.
>
> Thanks for responding, but I have the options in different orders in
> both paragraphs, so I'm not sure which you're calling "the former".
> Is 4.0 an add-on or a replacement?

I only saw two sentences that were actual questions, which were the ones
to which I responded and referred. Sorry it wasn't more clear.
From: CSharpner on
On May 4, 3:21 am, Peter Duniho <no.peted.s...(a)no.nwlink.spam.com>
wrote:
> CSharpner wrote:
> > On May 3, 11:29 am, Peter Duniho <no.peted.s...(a)no.nwlink.spam.com>
> > wrote:
> >> CSharpner wrote:
> >>> When .NET upgraded from 2.0 to 3.0 (and again to 3.5), 3.0 and 3.5
> >>> weren't really totally new versions of .NET.  They required 2.0 to be
> >>> there and were more of an extension or and add-on to 2.0.
>
> >>> What about .NET 4.0?  Is it a complete framework all on its own?  Or
> >>> does it require 2.0 (and/or 3.x)?
>
> >> The former.
>
> > Thanks for responding, but I have the options in different orders in
> > both paragraphs, so I'm not sure which you're calling "the former".
> > Is 4.0 an add-on or a replacement?
>
> I only saw two sentences that were actual questions, which were the ones
> to which I responded and referred.  Sorry it wasn't more clear.

Very true. Only two were questions. Unfortunately, a lot of people
(not you, of course) aren't as direct and logical as you are. I
couldn't tell which kind of replyer you were. :)