Bug 69297 - strange ordering when set to order alphabetically
Summary: strange ordering when set to order alphabetically
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: kate
Classification: Applications
Component: general (show other bugs)
Version: 2.2
Platform: unspecified Linux
: NOR normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: KWrite Developers
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-11-29 20:08 UTC by Albert Astals Cid
Modified: 2004-05-11 22:55 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:


Attachments
qt program that seems to hit the same bug (356 bytes, text/plain)
2004-01-01 23:44 UTC, Albert Astals Cid
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Albert Astals Cid 2003-11-29 20:08:03 UTC
Version:           2.2 (using KDE 3.1.93 (CVS >= 20031111), compiled sources)
Compiler:          gcc version 3.3.1 (Mandrake Linux 9.2 3.3.1-2mdk)
OS:          Linux (i686) release 2.4.22-21mdk

If i choose to order the file list alphabetically and open unit.cpp unit.h and unitdescriptor.cpp they got sorted this way

unit.cpp
unitdescriptor.cpp
unit.h

that is incorrect, because everyone knows that in an alphabetical sort, that words are sorted as 

unit.cpp
unit.h
unitdescriptor.cpp

or maybe 

unitdescriptor.cpp
unit.cpp
unit.h

depending if d is lesser or not that . 
but unit.cpp and unit.h must be together.
Comment 1 Christoph Cullmann 2004-01-01 23:19:43 UTC
hmm, that works with my cvs version, perhaps some bug in your qt version, we just use the qt qlistbox sort () methode
Comment 2 Albert Astals Cid 2004-01-01 23:43:28 UTC
Here with todays CVS i can still reproduce that behaviour, but that seems to be at qt level as the following program seems to hit the same thing. I'll report to qt-bugs and see what they say.
Comment 3 Albert Astals Cid 2004-01-01 23:44:17 UTC
Created attachment 3922 [details]
qt program that seems to hit the same bug
Comment 4 Albert Astals Cid 2004-05-11 22:55:00 UTC
It finally seems that it was a feature and not a bug :-( see http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2004-01/msg00146.html