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) <asmus-inc_at_ix.netcom.com>
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./
>
Received on Fri Mar 18 2016 - 15:24:41 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Mar 18 2016 - 15:24:41 CDT