[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.
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, (continued)
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Juri Linkov, 2015/09/08
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/09/08
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Artur Malabarba, 2015/09/09
- RE: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Drew Adams, 2015/09/09
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Richard Stallman, 2015/09/09
- RE: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Drew Adams, 2015/09/09
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Richard Stallman, 2015/09/09
- RE: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Drew Adams, 2015/09/09
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, David Kastrup, 2015/09/10
- RE: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Drew Adams, 2015/09/10
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Juri Linkov, 2015/09/11
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Richard Stallman, 2015/09/08
- RE: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Drew Adams, 2015/09/08
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Richard Stallman, 2015/09/09
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Ulrich Mueller, 2015/09/08
Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Richard Stallman, 2015/09/02