> I can't argue with that ... but my strings were always in (32-bit wide) > Unicode at "sort-time". I'm not sure exactly how much value there is a > lexicographical sort anyway. I mean, even in Latin-1, surely 'é' should > not come after 'z'?
Not always. In particular there's time when a dependable sort order is required, but just what that sort order is isn't important. In those cases it can useful that UTF-8 and UTF-32 will both do a binary sort with equivalent results. > > Of course, UTF-16 doesn't have the binary sort property either. Nope, though an efficient mechanism to sort UTF-16 in the codepoint order is available.
