4 ms·

I think the algorithm is probably incorrect. A number starting with 0 should be treated lexically not numerically. Otherwise you have a situation where img_1_01

by dcomp 1y ago

I think the algorithm is probably incorrect. A number starting with 0 should be treated lexically not numerically. Otherwise you have a situation where img_1_01.jpg and img_01_1.jpg does not have a complete ordering.

gregates 1y ago
It wouldn't be the first time widely-used software sorted numbers by a function that does not produce a total ordering. For example, Excel: https://gregat.es/excel-numeric-order-transitivity/ https://gregat.es/excel-numeric-order-transitivity/
re 1y ago
> Otherwise you have a situation where img_1_01.jpg and img_01_1.jpg does not have a complete ordering. (Good) "natural sort" implementations generally have ways of handling ties like this. It's similar to the problem of case-insensitive sort over case sensitive sets.
crazygringo 1y ago
That's not the issue. The issue here is that one camera appends milliseconds to the seconds without a separator, and the other uses a separator. So of course the ones that include milliseconds look like bigger numbers and get sorted last. Leading zeros aren't the issue here.