Thomas Bushnell BSG scripsit:

> A generically named function on a fancy/schmancy
> system should do the correct locale-dependent operation when case
> mapping is requested.  It should also provide a "neutral" locale which
> will implement the locale-independent case mapping from the Unicode
> data files.

Then this seems to be a matter of taste (or theology): you think that
the names which our fathers knew of old ought to be bound to the smartest
routines available in a given implementation, whereas I think they ought
to be bound to simple basic universally definesd routine that does all
of the job in some circumstances and part of it in others.  If you agree
that this is the remaining point of disagreement, I'll say no more about
it, and those whose job it is to decide can do so.

> As long as the functions do not rigidly require
> specific behaviors that are known to cause problems, and are not
> misleadingly named, I'm content.

All specific behaviors are known to cause problems in *some* circumstances.

--
John Cowan  xxxxxx@reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo:
"Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!"
El Auruns's reply:  "Many happy returns of the day!"