[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: revised w/nocase text, considering titlecase and cased

On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 9:49 AM, John Cowan <cowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alex Shinn scripsit:

> On the other hand, it just seems surprising enough that w/nocase on one
> case isn't equivalent to the union of all cases.  And that (w/nocase
> upper) != (w/nocase lower).  Enough so that it might be worth making
> an exception for this.

Perhaps then the Right Thing would be to redefine upper and lower to
mean letters which are not only Lu or Ll as the case may be, but are
also part of a casing pair, when in the context of nocase.

On the other hand, PCRE can't do that.

Yes, and this would also be pretty counter-intuitive.

What I will do is specifically note that

  (w/nocase upper)
  (w/nocase lower)

are all the same thing (where cased is characters with
the cased (L&) property), and forget for now about
making cased or titlecase explicitly available.

The only reasonable alternative I can think of is to
make this optional.