Rational Range Interpretation for bash-5.0?

[Chet Ramey]

Hi. I am considering making bash glob expansion implement rational range
interpretation starting with bash-5.0 -- basically making globasciiranges
the default. It looks like glibc is going to do this for version 2.28 (at
least for a-z, A-Z, and 0-9), and other GNU utilities have done it for some
time. What do folks think?

Chet

[Eric Blake]

Post by Chet Ramey
Hi. I am considering making bash glob expansion implement rational range
interpretation starting with bash-5.0 -- basically making globasciiranges
the default. It looks like glibc is going to do this for version 2.28 (at
least for a-z, A-Z, and 0-9), and other GNU utilities have done it for some
time. What do folks think?

I'm in favor of the idea.

[Bob Proulx]

Post by Chet Ramey
Hi. I am considering making bash glob expansion implement rational range
interpretation starting with bash-5.0 -- basically making globasciiranges
the default. It looks like glibc is going to do this for version 2.28 (at
least for a-z, A-Z, and 0-9), and other GNU utilities have done it for some
time. What do folks think?

I think the non-rational ranges in libc were a terrible idea that we
have all been suffering with over the last decade plus.

Bob

[Aharon Robbins]

Post by Chet Ramey
Hi. I am considering making bash glob expansion implement rational range
interpretation starting with bash-5.0 -- basically making globasciiranges
the default. It looks like glibc is going to do this for version 2.28 (at
least for a-z, A-Z, and 0-9), and other GNU utilities have done it for some
time. What do folks think?
Chet

As the Founding Father of the Society for Rational Range Interpretation
I can only say that I think this is a wonderful idea!! Yes, please
do it!

Arnold

[Bize Ma]

On 08/06/2018 03:07 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:

Hi. I am considering making bash glob expansion implement rational range
interpretation starting with bash-5.0 -- basically making globasciiranges
the default. It looks like glibc is going to do this for version 2.28 (at
least for a-z, A-Z, and 0-9), and other GNU utilities have done it for some
time. What do folks think?


I am in favor of the idea provided there is a way to change back to what is
now the default.

Also, the character order may be extended to use C.utf-8 instead of ASCII
to have an stable order for all UNICODE characters.

Read
https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/open-infrastructure-locales-c.utf-8/locales-c.utf-8.7.en.html

[Ilkka Virta]

Post by Chet Ramey
Hi. I am considering making bash glob expansion implement rational range
interpretation starting with bash-5.0 -- basically making globasciiranges
the default. It looks like glibc is going to do this for version 2.28 (at
least for a-z, A-Z, and 0-9), and other GNU utilities have done it for some
time. What do folks think?

I tried to think about a counterpoint, some case for where the current
(non-globasciiranges) behaviour would be useful, but I can't come up
with any. At least the part where [a-z] matches A, but not Z makes it a
bit useless.

If you're considering special-casing just those three, I'd suggest
adding a-f and A-F too, for patterns matching hex digits.

So yeah, +1 from me.