[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?

From: Richard Stallman
Subject: Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:50:00 -0400

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > > No, they aren't.  For instance, A and Á are not equivalent in search.
  > > Searching for A will match Á, but searching for Á will not match A.

  > Please read what I said: "The chars are equivalent when searched for."
  >                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I stand corrected.  Strictly speaking, that is true.  But since the
term's implications could be misleading, let's avoid the word
"equivalence" and say it in other ways.

  >   That is the proposal of this thread: to make
  > them equivalent also in their use in a search string (when char
  > folding is turned on).
I think that is a mistake.

  > The only explanation I saw from you was that you want the presence
  > of an accented char in the search string to automatically turn off
  > char folding.  That's your preference.

I proposed that.  But perhaps making Á match only Á is better.

Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]