On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah, but not, afaict, EBCDIC. It would help for you to review the sources. It wasn't a correct alpha sort until I put in the EBCDIC code table this weekend, now EBCDIC chars collate in ASCII order under this function. > And in our use case, we > don't care (and never use) the greater/less-than functionality, > s/our/my/;s/we/I/; - projecting much? Designing utility functions is about designing for utility, not one case. If it is one case don't abstract it. That's why util[_string].c has a lot of apparently duplicate functionality that we don't generally need under stdc '89 and APR, but we just hadn't gone back and mopped up yet. > just the equal to. This allows for possible other improvements/ > enhancements which might "break" the >< but doesn't affect > how *we* use it. Why would we break this? Right now you can presume that if you are looking strictly for some encoding tokens 'chunked' 'deflate' 'gzip', you can actually walk the token list in alpha order and find out what was missing or unexpected in a slightly more efficient way.
