Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

the discussion so far Matthew Flatt (16 Jul 2005 12:41 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: the discussion so far Alex Shinn (20 Jul 2005 02:50 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (20 Jul 2005 02:56 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Alex Shinn (20 Jul 2005 03:15 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (20 Jul 2005 03:24 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Alex Shinn (20 Jul 2005 03:38 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (20 Jul 2005 03:49 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far John.Cowan (20 Jul 2005 04:24 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (20 Jul 2005 04:27 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far John.Cowan (20 Jul 2005 04:58 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (20 Jul 2005 05:04 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: the discussion so far bear (20 Jul 2005 02:45 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far John.Cowan (20 Jul 2005 03:56 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Jorgen Schaefer (16 Jul 2005 13:05 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Matthew Flatt (16 Jul 2005 13:21 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Jorgen Schaefer (16 Jul 2005 13:58 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (17 Jul 2005 02:42 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (17 Jul 2005 02:57 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Jorgen Schaefer (17 Jul 2005 03:33 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far bear (16 Jul 2005 18:07 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far John.Cowan (17 Jul 2005 04:49 UTC)
Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG (17 Jul 2005 02:40 UTC)

Re: the discussion so far Thomas Bushnell BSG 17 Jul 2005 02:57 UTC

Jorgen Schaefer <xxxxxx@forcix.cx> 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
all.

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?