Nothing important; somebody noticed this also, MS <CRLF> vs. <CR> ...
-
Who says you can't enumerate it? Of course you can enumerate it.
Sorry, but enumerable means sortable... in case you say no to that, then I doubt your statements [Edit] sorry, I'm not native English but enumerable means implicitly also sortable, at least for me [/Edit] [Edit1] But maybe because of my lack of English I misinterpreted your statement, mentioned above. In case that happens, sorry. For me everyting is 'sortable' because we can introduce for everyting our 'sort rule' [/Edit1]
-
This link describes CRLF vs CR pretty well. Difference between CR LF, LF and CR line break types? - Stack Overflow[^]
Kelly Herald Software Developer
-
Sorry, but enumerable means sortable... in case you say no to that, then I doubt your statements [Edit] sorry, I'm not native English but enumerable means implicitly also sortable, at least for me [/Edit] [Edit1] But maybe because of my lack of English I misinterpreted your statement, mentioned above. In case that happens, sorry. For me everyting is 'sortable' because we can introduce for everyting our 'sort rule' [/Edit1]
Nope. enumerable ADJECTIVE mathematics able to be counted by one-to-one correspondence with the set of all positive integers.
-
Nope. enumerable ADJECTIVE mathematics able to be counted by one-to-one correspondence with the set of all positive integers.
Rather than all the arguing, how about you explain your statement that ids should not be sortable.
-
Rather than all the arguing, how about you explain your statement that ids should not be sortable.
You have omitted the keyword meaningfully from the quote. An ID is a substitute key. It should not have a meaning. It's usually an incremented integer for practical reasons, which is sortable per definition but the order has no meaning, it could just as well be a GUID. <edit>my bad, I see the quote has been edited
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Nope. enumerable ADJECTIVE mathematics able to be counted by one-to-one correspondence with the set of all positive integers.
Nope ;) Enumarable is also A,B,C and also chinese characters are also kind of sortable. And btw. A,B,C was invented before ascii code ;) Sorry, I think you can't explain where I'm wrong. I case you can then please: Do it and do it with math background. Thanks, and I'm not interested in fights, I'm only interested on facts.
-
You have omitted the keyword meaningfully from the quote. An ID is a substitute key. It should not have a meaning. It's usually an incremented integer for practical reasons, which is sortable per definition but the order has no meaning, it could just as well be a GUID. <edit>my bad, I see the quote has been edited
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
"It's usually an incremented integer for practical reasons" ... which is also the badest thing for an index (usually implemented as somtehing like a binary tree) because each increment does need to reorganice the tree. Anyway: Everything is sortable, either because we can do it on a binary representation or if not possible (what most probably will never be the case) one can introduce our self defined sorting.
-
Who says you can't enumerate it? Of course you can enumerate it.
-
Nope ;) Enumarable is also A,B,C and also chinese characters are also kind of sortable. And btw. A,B,C was invented before ascii code ;) Sorry, I think you can't explain where I'm wrong. I case you can then please: Do it and do it with math background. Thanks, and I'm not interested in fights, I'm only interested on facts.
Crayons are enumerable, cows are enumerable, photographs are enumerable, grains of sand on a beach are enumerable, are they sortable?
-
Still missing an answer to "Ok, then please explain how to index a thing you can't enumerate. Please ...
I didn't say you could.
-
"It's usually an incremented integer for practical reasons" ... which is also the badest thing for an index (usually implemented as somtehing like a binary tree) because each increment does need to reorganice the tree. Anyway: Everything is sortable, either because we can do it on a binary representation or if not possible (what most probably will never be the case) one can introduce our self defined sorting.
If by "badest", you mean "worst", then I agree, integers are a poor choice for IDs.
Member 15353828 wrote:
Everything is sortable
Nope.
-
Crayons are enumerable, cows are enumerable, photographs are enumerable, grains of sand on a beach are enumerable, are they sortable?
-
In most(?) parts of the MS- ecosystem - stuff (e.g. Notepad) is used to seperate lines for textual data. To know what I mean, look at a textfile where lines are seperated by only with notepad... Now in MS-Teams it looks like they changed their mind and followed the Unix standard and use only , try: Copy paste a text from MS-Teams and paste it to notepad. ... either way not really earth-shattering ;)
Yeah! F**k standards. Ignore completely what international standards have said for fifty+ years about the semantics of CR and LF. Sure enogh: The *nix community has for 30+ years argued 'F**k standards! NIH!' - their only 'significant' argument being that it saves eight bits of storage space per text line. That sure is essential, isn't it? There are sensible *nix adherents. That does not include those justifying LF newlines 'because it saves eight bits'.
-
Yeah! F**k standards. Ignore completely what international standards have said for fifty+ years about the semantics of CR and LF. Sure enogh: The *nix community has for 30+ years argued 'F**k standards! NIH!' - their only 'significant' argument being that it saves eight bits of storage space per text line. That sure is essential, isn't it? There are sensible *nix adherents. That does not include those justifying LF newlines 'because it saves eight bits'.
-
If by "badest", you mean "worst", then I agree, integers are a poor choice for IDs.
Member 15353828 wrote:
Everything is sortable
Nope.
'If by "badest", you mean "worst", then I agree, integers are a poor choice for IDs' On this I think we come closer, more I think we are on the same line. "Everything is sortable": Nope Please give me an idea what is not sortable. Minor: And sorry I have no idea about how to responde something 'quoted'. Thats why I put the quotes in italic. And also pay attention, I'm not native English therefore the chance of missunderstanding is always present :(
-
'If by "badest", you mean "worst", then I agree, integers are a poor choice for IDs' On this I think we come closer, more I think we are on the same line. "Everything is sortable": Nope Please give me an idea what is not sortable. Minor: And sorry I have no idea about how to responde something 'quoted'. Thats why I put the quotes in italic. And also pay attention, I'm not native English therefore the chance of missunderstanding is always present :(
Crayons are enumerable, cows are enumerable, photographs are enumerable, grains of sand on a beach are enumerable, are they sortable?
-
And now please repeat/explain less emotional, that I don't need to google every thing. Thanks in advance ;)
-
Crayons are enumerable, cows are enumerable, photographs are enumerable, grains of sand on a beach are enumerable, are they sortable?
-
If I understand you right: Any reference to international standards is 'emotional'. At least if they are in conflict with with what is pushed by the *nix community. Fair enough. It makes a point, sort of.
-
These are facts. Not everything is sortable.