From: unruh@invalid.ca   
      
   On 2017-04-25, bad sector  wrote:   
   > On 04/25/2017 06:36 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:   
   >> On 2017-04-25 05:02, bad sector wrote:   
   >>> On 04/24/2017 09:53 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>> Oh yeah, if one my employees sorted a partition-number based menu   
   >>>>> oputput like 1, 10, 11, 13, 2, 3, 4...  i'd fire him on the spot for   
   >>>>> having no brain, really :-)   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Well, then don't do computers.   
   >>>   
   >>> Why, aren't computers meant to be used by humans?   
   >>>   
   >>> all it needs is leading zeroes, a no-brainer (pun intended)   
   >>   
   >> But you gave a list without leading zeroes. You have to explicitly tell   
   >> it to add zeroes, how exactly, how many... Or specify a numerical sort   
   >> instead of the default alphabetical sort.   
   >   
   > I like to see things ordered and logical, maybe that's incongruent with   
   > development mentalities :-)   
      
   The sort you gave us WAS ordered and logical. It was sorted by alphabet,   
   not by meaning, which is both ordered and logical. That the sort should   
   change depending on whether the next alphabetical character is a number   
   of is a letter is, you must admit, pretty arbitrary and not nearly as   
   logical. Had it sorted the words based on whether the letter following   
   the first letter was a vowel or consonant you would probably have   
   screamed about that.   
      
      
   >   
   > I shouldn't have to tell a grub *anything* to get a reasonable default   
   > sort but if there's a method I'll look into it.   
      
   What for you is "reasonable"? What meaning is the sort supposed to take   
   into account? Ur-language origin?   
      
   >   
   > Since we're looking at booting options on a physical real-world   
   > multi-partition disk, to me an alphabetical sort would be total   
      
   So you not only want a sort based on something other than alphabet, you   
   want a sort also based on context? This is reasonable?   
      
      
   > nonesense. Others may have other ideas but the fact that the list is   
   > anything but alphabetical seems to support my idea. What's missing is   
   > one leading zero which would cover 99 partitions. Nor would I have half   
      
   Yes, but that would make it an alphabetical sort, which you seem to   
   distain?   
      
      
   > the problem with two leading zeros that I do with a list that wants to   
   > be numerical but is neither. Here's what I see   
   >   
   > TW   
   > 1   
   > 11   
   > 12   
   > 13   
   > 3   
   > 7   
   > 8   
   > 9   
   >   
   > Not only is this NEITHER, the top entry is the one from which grub2 was   
      
   It is alphabetical. What do you mean "is neither"? Note that the   
   sentence containing that is a grammatical mess.   
      
   > launched. If that, in this case TW installation, had been on partition 7   
   > then 7 would lead the list but the actual listing is even worse than   
   > that because it gives NO number at all, not a leading zero nor an   
   > internal 2. It's really encouraging to see that the user is required to   
   > remember which partition the list was created from. That's part of what   
   > I meant.   
   >   
   > Yes, I did have thug-shit for breakfest this morning.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)