Rockbox mail archive
Subject: Re: Behaviour of the "natural" sort: consensus reached?
Re: Behaviour of the "natural" sort: consensus reached?
Thomas Martitz wrote:
> 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
>> current thread was that multiple leading zeroes would be reduced to a
>> single zero for sorting purposes, which I don't believe was the
>> (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
I've already stated I don't recall the full consensus, and have also
stated I'm not sure an exact status was ever reached.
> 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.
This leading zeroes part was only a small part of the natural sorting
debate. The natural sorting code *at the time* actually broke this part of
the functionality (i.e. 00file.mp3 sorted in the "f" area rather than the
"0" area), which was why this was discussed.
> PS: Keep saying "No, this was not the consensus, go read what it was" is
> not helpful at all.
And neither is saying "I think it might have been this, but I'm not sure" :-)
http://www.by-ang.com - the place to shop for all manner of hand crafted
items, including Jewellery, Greetings Cards and Gifts
Received on 2009-04-23
Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew