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

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

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 115 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 115 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 7:56 AM, John Cowan <cowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alex Shinn scripsit:

> What I will do is specifically note that
>   (w/nocase upper)
>   (w/nocase lower)
>   cased
> are all the same thing (where cased is characters with
> the cased (L&) property),

But they aren't the same thing; I already showed that.

Yes.  I'm proposing _defining_ them to be the same thing.

Specifically, in the w/nocase text after the explanation of
how char-sets are handled, I would include:

  As a special case, the pre-defined named character sets
  upper and lower (and their aliases upper-case and lower-case)
  are defined to match all characters with the cased property (L&).
  Note also all other pre-defined named character sets are
  equivalent to themselves under w/nocase.

  Rationale: The differences between the case insensitive
  lower and upper and the cased property are few and unlikely
  to match user intention.  Moreover, unlike the algorithmically
  mapped upper and lower char-sets, the cased property is
  readily available in most Unicode implementations.

And the only realistic alternative I can see is making this
special case optional, so that either behavior is correct.