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

[Juri Linkov]

>   > I'd much rather we focus effort on making the equiv-classes easier to 
> customize.
>
> Let's not call them "equiv-classes", because that term presupposes
> symmetry.  (An equivalence relation is symmetric.)  Let's call them
> search classes for characters.

A case table can define all of them: upcase, canonicalize, and equivalence
classes, so char-folding could define equiv-classes as well.