605
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Case-sensitive is easier to implement; it's just a string of bytes. Case-insensitive requires a lot of code to get right, since it has to interpret symbols that make sense to humans. So, something over wondered about:

That's not hard for ASCII, but what about Unicode? Is the precomposed ç treated the same lexically and by the API as Latin capital letter c + combining cedilla? Does the OS normalize all of one form to the other? Is ß the same as SS? What about alternate glyphs, like half width or full width forms? Is it i18n-sensitive, so that, say, E and É are treated the same in French localization? Are Katakana and Hiragana characters equivalent?

I dunno, as a long-time Unix and Linux user, I haven't tried these things, but it seems odd to me to build a set of character equivalences into the filesystem code, unless you're going to do do all of them. (But then, they're idiosyncratic and may conflict between languages, like how ö is its letter in the Swedish alphabet.)

[-] Miaou@jlai.lu 3 points 1 week ago

Yeah the us defaultism really shows here.

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

More characters than Ascii? Surely you must be mistaken.

load more comments (2 replies)
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
605 points (90.3% liked)

linuxmemes

20707 readers
1449 users here now

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS