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

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

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.