hah
This commit is contained in:
parent
79ebe8e3f2
commit
1abba45a39
17
SORTING
17
SORTING
@ -1,17 +1,11 @@
|
||||
On the criteria for ordering
|
||||
==============================
|
||||
|
||||
I was confused by the documentation for sort's "-d" flag. I suggest that
|
||||
we do one of the following.
|
||||
|
||||
* Specify that dictionary order is the default ordering and
|
||||
that "-d" thus usually has no effect
|
||||
* Change the default ordering to be a be ASCIIbetical, a lexicographic
|
||||
sort that considers all characters rather than just blanks and
|
||||
alphanumeric characters.
|
||||
I was confused by the documentation for sort's "-d" flag. This confusion
|
||||
relates to GNU coreutil's locale-specific sort. [^]
|
||||
|
||||
Below I discuss sort order differences between different implementations
|
||||
of sort and of sh "*".
|
||||
of sort and of sh "*" for my particular environments.
|
||||
|
||||
Sorting with sort
|
||||
------------
|
||||
@ -47,7 +41,7 @@ Debian Wheezy.
|
||||
- d
|
||||
! e
|
||||
|
||||
IEEE Std 1003.1, 2013 Edition [^] specifies that the "-d" flag should
|
||||
IEEE Std 1003.1, 2013 Edition [^^] specifies that the "-d" flag should
|
||||
enable dictionary order. All of these versions of sort have clear
|
||||
documentation about the order that should be returned when the "-d" flag
|
||||
is set, (See --help, man, or info.) and the implementations match the
|
||||
@ -100,4 +94,5 @@ sorting on the rest of the line.
|
||||
that the above results are in dictionary order because of my investigation of
|
||||
incompatible implementations of sort.)
|
||||
|
||||
[^] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
|
||||
[^] https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/coreutils-faq.html#Sort-does-not-sort-in-normal-order_0021
|
||||
[^^] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user