Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?

[Davis Herring]

> Whether or not this behavior for case-fold is still a good thing
> is questionable now, I think.  I don't think it is necessary now
> or particularly useful.  And I think it can be confusing to
> newbies.  Why should searching for A be different from searching
> for a, wrt case matching?

Because having both input characters mean the same thing uselessly
deprives the user of expressive power.

> Why not?  Why, when char folding, treat plain a specially for
> searching?  Why not treat á, a, à, ã, ª, â, å, and ä the same?

For exactly the same reason.

> And when it comes to chars other than letters, it might well
> be that some users, with some keyboards, will find some chars
> in an equivalence class easier to type than others.  Let them
> use/type whichever they like, no?

It would make sense to provide a customization option to control which
character meant the whole set -- if anyone would use it.  Are there in
fact keyboards where the accented characters are significantly easier?

> This feature, welcome as it is, seems only half-baked, so far.
> How about equality for char-folding equivalence?

These are code points, not oppressed minorities.

Davis

-- 
This product is sold by volume, not by mass.  If it appears too dense or
too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during
shipping.