From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2003-03-14 21:58:08
|
Bugs item #703807, was opened at 2003-03-14 19:53 You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=110894&aid=703807&group_id=10894 Category: 16. Commands I-L Group: 8.4.2 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Donal K. Fellows (dkf) Summary: misleading documentation: lsearch,lsort Initial Comment: From man lsearch: "-ascii The list elements are to be examined as ASCII strings. This option is only meaningful when used with -exact or - sorted. " From man lsort: "-ascii Use string comparison with ASCII collation order. This is the default. " In both cases no implicit [encoding convertto ascii] takes place, as one might understand the documentation, and all Unicodes are accepted (I hope!). In the lsearch case, dropping the word ASCII might be enough. In the lsort case, I strongly suspect that Unicode collation order applies. So as not to break code, the switch names should not be changed; but the documentation should tell the truth (and maybe, to prevent all misunderstanding, add the phrase "not limited to ASCII" in both cases). Ric...@si... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Donal K. Fellows (dkf) Date: 2003-03-14 22:10 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=79902 Err, the point is that the '-ascii' ordering is using the "Know-nothing character-wise ordering". I'd hate to assert that this is the Unicode collation ordering though; that might be (and, knowing the Unicode consortium, probably is, what with surrogates) slightly different... We're really after "Stupid string programmer ordering" but I can't call it that in documentation. :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=110894&aid=703807&group_id=10894 |