This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 13 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 13 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
I am not sure if it's a good idea to use strings ("<", "<=", or "=")
as ordering arguments; symbols are better but I think the Scheme
way is to use first-class functions if they do the trick:
(collation->string< language-specifier) -> pred?
(collation->string<= language-specifier) -> pred?
(collation->string> language-specifier) -> pred?
(collation->string>= language-specifier) -> pred?
(pred? string1 string2) -> bool
In addition, the user still should have access to
string->collation-key and collation key comparison
procedures to avoid costly collation key recalculations
in search, sorting, etc.
Sergei
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Mason <dmason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <srfi-13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: String comparison under Latin-1 and Unicode
> Sorry, I sent this prematurely!
>
> >>>>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:00:16 -0500, Dave Mason
<dmason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
> > I would much prefer either:
> > (collation->predicate language-specifier ordering) -> pred?
> > (pred? string1 string2) -> bool
>
> and then didn't give the or:
> (collation->predicate language-specifier) -> pred?
> (pred? ordering string1 string2) -> bool
>
> (though I prefer the first version)
>
> > where LANGUAGE-SPECIFIER is as Ben Goetter
> > <goetter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> suggested and ORDERING is one of the
> > strings "<", "<=", or "="
>
> > This seems far more useful, and efficient that converting any string
> > you want to compare to a collation-key!
>
> ../Dave
>