The 'swapcase' just sounds bizarre. What on earth is it for? My inclination would be to just do the simplest possible implementation that has the expected results for the 1:1 case pairs, and whatever falls out from the algorithm for the others.
Mark On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Asmus Freytag (t) <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/18/2016 12:33 PM, Marcel Schneider wrote: > > As about decomposing digraphs and ypogegrammeni to apply swapcase: That > probably would be doing no good, as itʼs unnecessary and users wonʼt expect > it. > > > That was my intuition as well, but based on a different line of argument. > If you add a feature to match behavior somewhere else, it rarely pays to > make that perform "better", because it just means it's now different and no > longer matches. > > The exception is a feature for which you can establish unambiguously that > there is a metric of correctness or a widely (universally?) shared > expectation by users as to the ideal behavior. In that case, being > compatible with a broken feature (or a random implementation of one) may in > fact be counter productive. > > The mere fact that you needed to ask here made me think that this would be > unlikely to be one of those exceptions: because in that case, you would > have easily be able to tap into a consensus that tells you what "better" > means. (And it the feature would probably have been more widely > implemented). > > This one is pretty bizarre on the face of it, but I like Marcel's > suggestion as to its putative purpose. > > A./ >
