MichaelL_at_frogware.com scripsit:
> (I started a thread on character and string comparisons some time ago, but
> then dropped it when I was home sick for a few days. My original point was
> that I thought it would be surprising that, for example, string<? was
> written in terms of char<? but string-ci-<? was *not* written in terms of
> char-ci-<?. Under the hood, the issue is that string-foldcase isn't
> written in terms of char-foldcase; the ordering algorithm used by the two
> ci functions is the same.)
The real problem is that char-foldcase is defective, and essentially so;
in a Unicode world, string functions just aren't character functions
lifted to the domain of sequences. If I had my druthers, there'd be
no character type at all, anywhere.
--
Some people open all the Windows; John Cowan
wise wives welcome the spring cowan_at_ccil.org
by moving the Unix. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--ad for Unix Book Units (U.K.)
(see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unix3image.gif)
Received on Thu Mar 15 2007 - 00:00:49 UTC
