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

Re: alpha sorting

To: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: alpha sorting
From: Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 15:28:25 -0500
Cc: ldp <ldp-discuss@lists.LinuxDoc.org>, ldp-discuss@lists.debian
References: <20000211225318.C1202@guylhem.free.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0002120200540.4909-100000@granola.prognet.com> <20000213193901.F1055@guylhem.free.fr>
Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
Resent-date: 13 Feb 2000 20:27:28 -0000
Resent-from: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org
Resent-message-id: <KLEjDB.A.aWH.vOxp4@murphy>
Resent-sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org

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 ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Follow-Ups:
- Re: alpha sorting
  - From: "der.hans" <ldp-discuss@LuftHans.com>

References:
- Re: alpha sorting
  - From: Guylhem Aznar <guylhem@metalab.unc.edu>
- Re: alpha sorting
  - From: Matthew Wilson <mwilson@real.com>
- Re: alpha sorting
  - From: Guylhem Aznar <guylhem@metalab.unc.edu>

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