String comparison under Latin-1 and Unicode
Ben Goetter
(10 Mar 2000 18:27 UTC)
|
Re: String comparison under Latin-1 and Unicode
Sergei Egorov
(10 Mar 2000 19:40 UTC)
|
Re: String comparison under Latin-1 and Unicode
Dave Mason
(10 Mar 2000 20:00 UTC)
|
Re: String comparison under Latin-1 and Unicode
Dave Mason
(10 Mar 2000 20:06 UTC)
|
Re: String comparison under Latin-1 and Unicode Sergei Egorov (10 Mar 2000 20:32 UTC)
|
Re: String comparison under Latin-1 and Unicode Sergei Egorov 10 Mar 2000 20:35 UTC
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 <xxxxxx@sarg.ryerson.ca> To: <srfi-13@srfi.schemers.org> 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 <xxxxxx@sarg.ryerson.ca> 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 > > <xxxxxx@angrygraycat.com> 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 >