[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: alpha sorting

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: alpha sorting
From: Sandy Harris <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 15:28:25 -0500
Cc: ldp <[email protected]>, [email protected]
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
Resent-date: 13 Feb 2000 20:27:28 -0000
Resent-from: [email protected]
Resent-message-id: <KLEjDB.A.aWH.vOxp4@murphy>
Resent-sender: [email protected]

Guylhem Aznar wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 02:02:25AM -0800, Matthew Wilson wrote:
> > what's more standard than alphabetical?
> 
> The ls and unix way of sorting.

I'm approaching 20 years of Unix use, and in many places I detest
case-insensitive crap. DOS filenames and SuSE's default settings
for pattern-matching in their 'vi' clone leap to mind.

Here, however, I think Guyhelm is completely wrong.

Sort the names alphabetically, case-insensitive. That will be easier
for most users, including long-time Unix users.

--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

Follow-Ups:
- Re: alpha sorting
  - From: "der.hans" <[email protected]>

References:
- Re: alpha sorting
  - From: Guylhem Aznar <[email protected]>
- Re: alpha sorting
  - From: Matthew Wilson <[email protected]>
- Re: alpha sorting
  - From: Guylhem Aznar <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: RE: Web site design and Slashdot reply .3
Next by Date: RE: restructuring
Previous by thread: Re: alpha sorting
Next by thread: Re: alpha sorting
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread