3 ms·

Do I understand that you want these to be sorted like this? 1 2 9 10 11 So I guess you also want things sorted like 1.1 1.2 2 9 9.9 And

Do I understand that you want these to be sorted like this? 1 2 9 10 11 So I guess you also want things sorted like 1.1 1.2 2 9 9.9 And also 1 1.1 1.10 1.2 1.10.1 So when you're done defining whatever crazy rules you think up, how do I pause whatever and edit the filenames to get them back into lexicographical order? You can massage lexicographical to meet your needs. I can't massage your arbitrary rules to meet my needs.

foldr 1y ago
Your examples don’t need any extra rules to be sorted correctly. The basic idea is that any sequence of digits is treated for sorting as if it were a single character. On my iPhone, your examples are sorted as expected.
- freehorse 1y ago
  Would you sort 1.10 1.2 or 1.2 1.10 ? I would not know how an OS treats those if we do not assume mindreading vs proper lexicographic order. Why would we need to substitute precision with vagueness for something that simply taking care of proper naming would suffice?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - foldr 1y ago
    Ah yes sorry, 1.10 comes after 1.2 because 10 is bigger than 2 (so in fact different from your example). But assuming your original list is a list of versions (which seems reasonable given the presence of multiple decimal points for some cases), then that’s the order you’d want. If you have non-integer numbers in your filenames then it won’t give the order you want, but there isn’t going to be a rule that works for all cases.
    - cyxxon 1y ago
      I was with you until this point, but 1.2 is bigger than 1.10, because 1.2 is a shortened version of writing 1.20 _unless_ you explicitely want these to be version numbers or something like that. The normal expectation would be to treat numbers as, well, mathematical numbers, and not SemVer, especially if we only have one decimal point, don't you think?
      - foldr 1y ago
        As I said, the sorting rule won’t always give pleasing results, but it seems to me like a simple and reasonable modification of lexicographic ordering.
        freeopinion 1y ago
        It is neither simple, nor reasonable. 1.10, the number, is equivalent to 1.1. It is less than 1.2. You say you want numbers to sort as numbers, but you want 1.10 to be greater than 1.2. Do you consider '1/4' to be a number? Should it come before or after '1/3'? I'm guessing that you don't want to sort one character at a time if you encounter one of [0-9]. Instead, you want to group all consecutive [0-9] as a single sortable number. But aren't characters '.', ',', '/', '-' also part of numbers? What about numbers like ↋, 五, π, B, ⅔, or -1?
        Wowfunhappy 1y ago
        It doesn’t work for decimals. It also doesn’t work for pi, or most dates. That’s okay. Supporting those cases would require “reading your mind” / trying to guess what the user wants by applying opaque rules. I certainly don’t want that. Treating consecutive digits as numbers is a simple modification (I still think it’s quite simple) that is easy to understand and supports 99% of real-world use cases.
    - rickdeckard 1y ago
      > But assuming your original list is a list of versions (which seems reasonable given the presence of multiple decimal points for some cases), then that’s the order you’d want. What level of assumption is here expected from the sorting-system, would it have to process ALL entries of the list to find multiple decimal-points and then assume that they are ALL versions and not numbers? How to treat this on different locales, where the decimal point is a comma and thousands-separator is a dot. Should the locale then also be considered by that system? Also when listing the folder of a remote-system with a different locale? What about dates, should that system attempt to sort entries with multiple date-formats (yyyy-mm-dd, dd-mm-yyyy, dd-MMM-yyyy,...)? The topic is far more complex than this narrow example. If we expect such a system to alter its sorting based on some data format interpretation, there is a risk of misinterpretation which might make the whole list unusable...

foldr 1y ago

Your examples don’t need any extra rules to be sorted correctly. The basic idea is that any sequence of digits is treated for sorting as if it were a single character. On my iPhone, your examples are sorted as expected.

freehorse 1y ago
Would you sort 1.10 1.2 or 1.2 1.10 ? I would not know how an OS treats those if we do not assume mindreading vs proper lexicographic order. Why would we need to substitute precision with vagueness for something that simply taking care of proper naming would suffice?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- foldr 1y ago
  Ah yes sorry, 1.10 comes after 1.2 because 10 is bigger than 2 (so in fact different from your example). But assuming your original list is a list of versions (which seems reasonable given the presence of multiple decimal points for some cases), then that’s the order you’d want. If you have non-integer numbers in your filenames then it won’t give the order you want, but there isn’t going to be a rule that works for all cases.
  - cyxxon 1y ago
    I was with you until this point, but 1.2 is bigger than 1.10, because 1.2 is a shortened version of writing 1.20 _unless_ you explicitely want these to be version numbers or something like that. The normal expectation would be to treat numbers as, well, mathematical numbers, and not SemVer, especially if we only have one decimal point, don't you think?
    - foldr 1y ago
      As I said, the sorting rule won’t always give pleasing results, but it seems to me like a simple and reasonable modification of lexicographic ordering.
      - freeopinion 1y ago
        It is neither simple, nor reasonable. 1.10, the number, is equivalent to 1.1. It is less than 1.2. You say you want numbers to sort as numbers, but you want 1.10 to be greater than 1.2. Do you consider '1/4' to be a number? Should it come before or after '1/3'? I'm guessing that you don't want to sort one character at a time if you encounter one of [0-9]. Instead, you want to group all consecutive [0-9] as a single sortable number. But aren't characters '.', ',', '/', '-' also part of numbers? What about numbers like ↋, 五, π, B, ⅔, or -1?
        Wowfunhappy 1y ago
        It doesn’t work for decimals. It also doesn’t work for pi, or most dates. That’s okay. Supporting those cases would require “reading your mind” / trying to guess what the user wants by applying opaque rules. I certainly don’t want that. Treating consecutive digits as numbers is a simple modification (I still think it’s quite simple) that is easy to understand and supports 99% of real-world use cases.
  - rickdeckard 1y ago
    > But assuming your original list is a list of versions (which seems reasonable given the presence of multiple decimal points for some cases), then that’s the order you’d want. What level of assumption is here expected from the sorting-system, would it have to process ALL entries of the list to find multiple decimal-points and then assume that they are ALL versions and not numbers? How to treat this on different locales, where the decimal point is a comma and thousands-separator is a dot. Should the locale then also be considered by that system? Also when listing the folder of a remote-system with a different locale? What about dates, should that system attempt to sort entries with multiple date-formats (yyyy-mm-dd, dd-mm-yyyy, dd-MMM-yyyy,...)? The topic is far more complex than this narrow example. If we expect such a system to alter its sorting based on some data format interpretation, there is a risk of misinterpretation which might make the whole list unusable...