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: Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz_at_fhtw-berlin.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:52:25 +0100
Dominik Riebeling schrieb:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Thomas Martitz
> <thomas.martitz_at_fhtw-berlin.de> wrote:
>> 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
> is *that*?
I'm telling that they don't need leading zeros for proper numerical
sorting anymore. I don't see bad reasoning in that.
>> 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.
Hence I asked you whether we should change the discription or the way it
sorts. Just answer that instead of getting angry at me.
>> 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.
And I'm not allowed to compare with how it currently works? And I'm not
allowed to say "Hey, this feature what you want, it does this already"?
> 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?
> - Dominik
Don't be ignorant please. We've had an *awful* lot of discussion before.
Do you really think I forgot about those? There are always pros and
cons. That's no reasoning to let something rot or something.
And please calm down please and stay friendly. No reason for getting at me.
Received on 2009-03-18