[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: lax matching is not a great default behavior
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: lax matching is not a great default behavior |
Date: |
Fri, 4 Dec 2015 15:57:47 -0800 (PST) |
> > AFAICT, "character folding" is as good as we've come up
> > with, so far - not some specific kind of character folding.
>
> How about "fuzzy matching"?
Too fuzzy. ;-) It means _less_ than character folding.
This is a case of folding (abstracting from) certain
characteristics of characters.
(I have no problem with our calling it character folding.
But if there is a more specific name for kind of character
folding we're doing here, let's hear it.)
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, (continued)
- RE: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Drew Adams, 2015/12/04
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/12/04
- RE: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Drew Adams, 2015/12/04
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, David Kastrup, 2015/12/04
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Artur Malabarba, 2015/12/04
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, David Kastrup, 2015/12/04
- RE: lax matching is not a great default behavior,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/12/05
- RE: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Drew Adams, 2015/12/05
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/12/05
- RE: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Drew Adams, 2015/12/05
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, John Wiegley, 2015/12/05