Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Behaviour of the "natural" sort: consensus reached?
Re: Behaviour of the "natural" sort: consensus reached?
From: Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz_at_student.htw-berlin.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:06:17 +0200
Mike Holden wrote:
> I don't plan to go over all this again, look in the archives!
> You're correct in as much as you say, but you aren't answering the
> original statement on this current thread. The original statement on this
> current thread was that multiple leading zeroes would be reduced to a
> single zero for sorting purposes, which I don't believe was the consensus
> (such as it was).
> Seriously though, this was done to death a few weeks ago. If anyone want
> to pick up where that left off then fine, but I wouldn't advocate going
> back to the beginning again! I'm not sure the thread ever reached a
> definitive list of requirements, but I do believe it got pretty close.
If you happen to know the exact consensus, then feel free to quote it. I
just stated what I recall. And I'm fairly sure nobody explictely wrote
down the consensus. But most of the people seemed to agree on what I wrote.
What you propose (taking all leading zeros into account) is what he have
in SVN now. If that was the consensus, there wouldn't have been noise
still after I committed it.
PS: Keep saying "No, this was not the consensus, go read what it was" is
not helpful at all.
Received on 2009-04-22