On 18.03.2009 23:02, Paul Louden wrote:
> Al Le wrote:
>>
>>> Well, we're currently using an "existing" algorithm. One that *may*
>>> be used in other FLOSS (I don't know, and haven't investigated). To
>>> me, the two sides of the argument are basically "do we want to use it
>>> as-is, such that our sorted lists look the same as lists in other
>>> applications, or do we want to define our own rules for 'natural'
>>> list sorting?"
>>
>> I'd opt for the latter, because it's easy to understand.
> "It sorts in this strange way we've made up" is easier to understand
> than "It sorts like Nautilus, FileBrowserX and FileBrowserY which you
> may already use?"

Yes, it's easier because it's a simple rule. If the browsers use a
complicated logic (which may change with a release) how would you
describe this for Rockbox? "It does it like BrowserX"? The next question
would be then "and how does BrowserX do it"? I'd rather have an
"absolute" than a "relative" definition.
Received on 2009-03-18