|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: how is strnatcmp aka "Interpret numbers while sorting" supposed to sort?Re: how is strnatcmp aka "Interpret numbers while sorting" supposed to sort?
From: Al Le <al.le_at_gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:28:08 +0100 On 18.03.2009 23:12, Paul Louden wrote: >> I'd rather have an "absolute" than a "relative" definition. > We already have an absolute: ASCII sort. Yes, but it doesn't treat the case "1, 2, ..., 10" in the way many users would expect (ot like) it. Hence the natsort. > Our "natural" sorting is entirely a mishmash of rules as to how numbers > should be treated, and other characters. It wouldn't be such a mishmash if we'd implement just that simple rule (which is given a very well name): "interpret numbers as ...". Any non-digit character (also a dot and a comma) are just characters, i.e. we only consider integer numbers. > For example, is "1.001" one point zero zero one, Not in natsort > or disk one track one, Not this in natsort. In natsort it would be "the number 1", a dot, "the number 1". The interpretation of the numbers is beyond the scope. > or one thousand and one? No since it assume a country specific separator. > If we make up our own non-standard way, yes, we can describe it. We can > a few paragraphs in the manual detailing how people can expect their > files to be sorted, since no other program does it like we do. Actually we wouldn't need a very long description if the rule would be simple enough. > I don't see why "we can describe it" is a reason to use our own method - > we can describe methods we get the code for from elsewhere too. But, as you pointed out above, such a complicated logic requires a long description with many examples illustrating all the quirks. Which makes such a description pointless since nobody would grasp it. Received on 2009-03-18 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |