From: Dominik Riebeling <dominik.riebeling_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:09:30 +0100

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Thomas Martitz
<thomas.martitz_at_fhtw-berlin.de> wrote:
> I'm telling that they don't need leading zeros for proper numerical sorting
> anymore. I don't see bad reasoning in that.

So, because leading zeros aren't required anymore leading zeros
immediately become intentional? This is broken reasoning to me. Just
because leading zeros aren't needed anymore there's no change if
leading zeros are intentional or not or our knowledge if they are or
not.

> Hence I asked you whether we should change the discription or the way it
> sorts. Just answer that instead of getting angry at me.

Errr? I was asking about how this feature is *intended* to work and
how people *expect* it to work. Not how it's currently done. The
current implementation might differ from the way it's intended 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"?

It doesn't help the case a tiny bit to present the current state if we
are talking about the intention. It doesn't help the case if you only
start to get defensive just because someone disagrees with the way
"your" feature works.

> 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.

Well, then it seems there wasn't enough discussion. Just let me point
to http://www.rockbox.org/irc/log-20090318#20:50:13 in the "light" of
this thread.


 - Dominik
Received on 2009-03-19