From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 111743 invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2018 20:53:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 111727 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jul 2018 20:53:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail-qt0-f171.google.com Return-Path: Subject: Re: Rational Ranges - Rafal and Mike's opinion? (Bug 23393). To: Rafal Luzynski , GNU C Library , Mike Fabian , Florian Weimer , "Joseph S. Myers" References: <9d6f47ec-f9eb-ead0-889c-3b9aae66551c@redhat.com> <5bcef059-b928-d2e9-82dd-2ae68be96020@redhat.com> <541d18da-6318-382e-d5cd-6c69a5db1a07@redhat.com> <1591019639.560449.1532465115579@poczta.nazwa.pl> From: Carlos O'Donell Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 20:53:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1591019639.560449.1532465115579@poczta.nazwa.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-07/txt/msg00777.txt.bz2 On 07/24/2018 04:45 PM, Rafal Luzynski wrote: > 23.07.2018 20:09 Carlos O'Donell 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. >From the perspective of the user of the library and the locales the rational ranges we implement will look as-if they were code point ranges for the ranges in question e.g. a-z, A-Z, 0-9 and their subranges. For 2.28 we will implement rational ranges for [a-z], [A-Z], and [0-9], and all of their subsets via a data-only solution. Just wanted to make it clear that all subsets will be treated as rational ranges. It is only for other subsets like [!-~] (ASCII range) where we will not have a rational range until we switch to making ranges operate on code points. That will be a 2.29 optimization. OK, I will prepare a patch to fix this. Cheers, Carlos.