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

Re: the discussion so far

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 75 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 75 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Jorgen Schaefer <forcer@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> String collation is very complex, as the "preferred" order of
> characters depends on the locale. But since STRING<? and friends
> are often used for things like binary search trees where the exact
> order is irrelevant and the only important thing is the existance
> of any kind of total order, defining them the way this SRFI does -
> by using the codepoint sequence - is good, because it is fast. If
> the implementation wants to provide the locale-dependent string
> collation, fine, but that's not useful for this SRFI to define.

This makes no sense.

If string<? is used only for cases where the exact order is
irrelevant, then there is no advantage in standardizing the order at

So why not say that string<? implements a total order on strings, and
be done with it, not specifying the order at all?

Why go out of your way to *mandate* an order which we already know is
wrong, when you don't need to mandate one at all?