On 18.03.2009 23:12, Paul Louden wrote:
I'd rather have an "absolute" than a "relative" definition.
We already have an absolute: ASCII sort.
Yes, but it doesn't treat the case "1, 2, ..., 10" in the way many users
would expect (ot like) it. Hence the natsort.
Our "natural" sorting is entirely a mishmash of rules as to how numbers
should be treated, and other characters.
It wouldn't be such a mishmash if we'd implement just that simple rule
(which is given a very well name): "interpret numbers as ...". Any
non-digit character (also a dot and a comma) are just characters, i.e.
we only consider integer numbers.
For example, is "1.001" one point zero zero one,
Not in natsort
or disk one track one,
Not this in natsort. In natsort it would be "the number 1", a dot, "the
number 1". The interpretation of the numbers is beyond the scope.
or one thousand and one?
No since it assume a country specific separator.
If we make up our own non-standard way, yes, we can describe it. We can
a few paragraphs in the manual detailing how people can expect their
files to be sorted, since no other program does it like we do.
Actually we wouldn't need a very long description if the rule would be
simple enough.
I don't see why "we can describe it" is a reason to use our own method -
we can describe methods we get the code for from elsewhere too.
But, as you pointed out above, such a complicated logic requires a long
description with many examples illustrating all the quirks. Which makes
such a description pointless since nobody would grasp it.
