Re: sorting order between win98/xp

From: Yung-Fong Tang (ftang@netscape.com)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 19:33:05 EST

  • Next message: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan: "Re: sorting order between win98/xp"

    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