Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:12085 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 3881 invoked by uid 1010); 10 Aug 2004 20:48:26 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 3804 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2004 20:48:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.communityconnect.com) (209.10.169.57) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 10 Aug 2004 20:48:25 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.communityconnect.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC526F5F4; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:51:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.communityconnect.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cc18-2.web.gbx.ccops.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27953-16; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:51:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.101.34] (cc240-0.web.gbx.ccops.us [10.30.0.240]) by mail.communityconnect.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFC36F60F; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:51:30 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: john@coggeshall.org To: Rasmus Lerdorf Cc: sterling@apache.org, Andi Gutmans , Marcus Boerger , John Coggeshall , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040730153406.02ec00f0@127.0.0.1> <24e5f3b70408101219286cd6d@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-ID: <1092170864.12209.13.camel@unix-101-34.hq.communityconnect.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-7) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:47:44 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mail.communityconnect.com Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Sorting Bug / Wrong behavior? From: john@coggeshall.org (John Coggeshall) Which generic sort function? They all use the same sorting code as far as I can tell. John On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 15:59, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Sterling Hughes wrote: > > i don't think sort() should be changed - this is how php works, for > > better or sometimes worse, changing it any other way would break BC, > > and it doesn't make much sense. > > I agree that we should keep the generic sort function the same. Might be > nice to add some more sort flags though. It's somewhat annoying that the > sort_string sort option doesn't use strcoll, for example, so you have to > use a usort to get proper string sorting in most languages. > > -Rasmus