This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Rational Ranges - Rafal and Mike's opinion? (Bug 23393).
On 07/24/2018 04:45 PM, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
> 23.07.2018 20:09 Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Rafal,
>>
>> As localedata maintainer what is your opinion of changing the meaning
>> of [a-z], [A-Z], and [0-9] to be rational ranges for *all* locales
>> which mean exactly the latin character sequences you would expect
>> e.g. {a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,n,m,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z} for [a-z],
>> [A-Z] likewise, and {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}?
>
> Having discussed this off-list my answer is: I'm in favor of implementing
> rational ranges treating [a-z], [A-Z], [0-9], and all their subsets as
> code-point ranges. But I understand that this is possible only in 2.29.
> Therefore for 2.28 I support this data-based solution.
I'll put together a final patch ASAP that provides:
* Deinterlace upper/lower
* Group a-z, A-Z, 0-9,
* NEWS entry for rational ranges.
Note: manual/stdio.texi also makes the mistake of saying [a-z] is lowercase
characters, so this will fix the manual bug with no change :-)
Cheers,
Carlos.