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: Dominik Riebeling <dominik.riebeling_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:40:49 +0100
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Thomas Martitz
> People can rely on ommitting leading zeros now since we can sort it
> correctly numerically. That makes me think that any leading zero may
> very well be intended.
People can rely on the way it was implemented so because of that you
consider leading zeros intentional? As in it was implemented that way
so you can consider leading zeros intentional? What kind of reasoning
> I don't see what's wrong with ignoring spaces. It's obvious that spaces
> aren't real part of the names when it comes to sorting (as in 1 and 2
> spaces should be sorted differently).
The setting doesn't tell anything about spaces. It talks about number.
Thus it has to deal with numbers, not spaces. Everything else is
misleading, wrong and confusing.
> Why would anyone want to sort by spaces anyway? This doesn't make any
> sense to me.
It doesn't need to make sense to you but I'm sure you'll find someone
out there that prefers this. That's definitely no good reason for
hiding a space-eating "feature" in number-aware sort.
> Decimal numbers and discnumber.tracknumber works with the current svn.
This discussion isn't about the way it works with current svn. It's
about how this feature is *supposed* to work and how people *expect*
it to work.
> If you search for logs, we had a discussion yesterday starting here:
> http://www.rockbox.org/irc/log-20090317#17:53:35 and today starting
> here: http://www.rockbox.org/irc/log-20090318#19:25:26
If you'd read my inital mail you'd noticed that I linked the first log
myself. Still I don't see a consensus how this *exactly* should work.
> Both are Flyspray-bugreport induced, and I can't remember another
> discussion other than those before the initial commit.
Well, someone commiting such a feature could have though about the
possibility others having a different view and expectation of such a
feature. Those FS entries must have had a reason, don't they?
Received on 2009-03-18