From: Yung-Fong Tang (ftang@netscape.com)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 19:33:05 EST
Doug got my point. What I care is the "difference" instead of which one
is better.
Doug Ewell wrote:
>Dominikus Scherkl <Dominikus dot Scherkl at glueckkanja dot com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>It is not deterministic string ordering
>>>
>>>
>>?!?
>>What's non-deterministic in numeric ordering?
>>Ok, mix of (letter-)strings and numbers maybe not so
>>straight-forward to sort than simply sorting digits
>>by their encoding-value (this is the cause it was
>>not implemented before), but I prefer it always very much.
>>
>>
>
>The question really isn't whether one sort order is "better" than
>another. It's easy to come up with examples where each method has an
>advantage.
>
>The real question is whether the same sort option should generate
>different results on different versions of Windows, all other things
>being equal. It would be nice to have an explicit option to sort
>strings by numeric value instead of character-set collating order, but
>not so good if the developer has no control over which method is used,
>and worse if Microsoft did not publicize this change; I don't know if
>they did or not).
>
>Note that I'm speaking in terms of programmable sorting. I really don't
>care how filenames in Windows Explorer are sorted.
>
Me neither. That is just to be used to show the problem is in the OS
level instead of programming error in our code.
>
>-Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 20:22:40 EST