Your comments

If it is trivial to to implement then it should be trivial to document the requirements in a positive constructive way.

I suspect you are right and that you have already put more, words, time and energy into arguing with me than it would take to take the positive road and lay out your idea in a formal or semi-formal manner.

There are issues to be addressed like whether A1 sorts before or after 1A. What is the 'natural' way? How about 110.b.123 and 110.1.123 and 110.1b.123  and 110.12.123 and 110_1b_123? How about 123a and 1234 and 123.1? These sorts of things may be so obvious to you that you consider they go without saying but setting them down clearly can do no harm can it?

Again I am not suggesting addressing these implementation details are huge hurdles and they may even justify being called 'trivial'. Again if addressing them is trivial then there seems to be little reason not to address them.

Anyway, I wish you well on however you decide to progress with this.

Cool. A positive and constructive contribution. Nice work!

Keep poisoning the thread with vitriol and hatred and the chance of anyone wading through it all reduce all the time.

I never suggested you would be able to simply drop in some code and have the sorting changed. I am not an idiot, no more than you are. Did I not say you would be looking at testing your code 'standalone'.

So are you happy that the code supplied by Matthijs van der Vleuten is the sorting algorithm you want to see implemented? If it is then that is wonderful. Now do (or extract) the testing and the documentation details and check if there are any licence restrictions and as much of that prep work as you can and do as much other stuff as you can so that if Jon decides to implement your requested change it is as little work for Jon as you can make it.

The cheaper you make the change for Jon the more likely it is you will see it implemented. I really don't think I am saying anything other than the completely obvious. How you are getting yourself into such a state of unpleasantness over it is beyond me.

Read my response to your other post. 

You do not need access to the core ST code to make active constructive progress on this issue.

You are twisting my words wildly to make them fit what you want me to say.

It appears that you think arguing here with me is going to get you what you want. I think that is not as likely to work as the positive action approach that I am suggesting.

But you are free to take whatever approach you like and I wish you well with the 'argue with people on the internet' approach to seeing the change you want realised in the world. It does work sometimes and I hope it works for you on this matter.

"Aren't you thinking about 16 vs 2, because that's what I'm seeing in the vote box? 16 positive votes are certinly eight times more than the 2 negative votes."

Yes those is the facts and we both agree that they are the facts. Not sure why you are restating them but there's something we agree on. The votes are 16 up 2 down. No more to discuss there.



"your active position is that it MUST NOT be implemented"

Nope. My position is that I don't **want** it implemented (especially not when there are a lot of things not yet done that I **do** want). It is just as valid for me to say what I want as it is for you to say what you want. Neither of us is saying the other is **wrong** in some ultimate sense are we? We are just expressing preferences. That's fine and healthy.

If you have some belief that my opinion in here carries more weight than yours and that I can block your idea or work then you are granting me unwarranted powers.


"I can't really understand what you're talking about"

Well here a few ideas to think about:

- Is there an existing Python 3 library or module that implements what you want to see?

- If there is an existing library/module what is is its name?

   - Now go test it in a simple harness and demonstrate that it is reasonably bug free and implements the change you want in an effective and efficient manner

- If there is not existing code then you have the freedom to write, test, debug, document and publish one. And then lobby here for it to be implemented either in the core of ST or as a plugin or package (not sure how a plugin/package would work but that's for those who want change to research to see if it can be done).

None of those require access to the ST core code. You can test the behaviour of sorting code as a standalone task.

In any situation in life you can help your cause best by doing as much of the initial work as you can. The easier you make it for others to give you what you want in life the more likely you are to get it.

There are other non-code idea like building up a positive community around the issue, documenting the requirement, documenting the algorithm you want to see implemented, etc etc.

You have a valid idea here. I disagree with you but don't let someone (or 16 or 50 people) disagreeing with you turn you away from something you want to do. Just take the active steps to make the change you want to see happen. I wish you well on your journey.

"I really can't see how not implementing a feature that has eight time more positive votes than negative can be good for anyone."

8 vs 2 is technically a multiple of 8 but you are grasping now aren't you.

So if 16 more people voted this down you would see it as being good to not have it implemented? Surely not. You want this feature don't you? 

So even if 50 people voted it down you wouldn't suddenly go 'Oh I must have been wrong. My personal opinion is worthless in the face of a number of people who wouldn't fill a medium sized room clicking on a button showing they disagree with me.'

You have your opinion. It's valid. It has support. It is worthwhile. Let that be enough as far as opinions go.

Now take action beyond talking. I have the easy path here because I am arguing for 'no change' so there is no work for me or anyone else to do. Those who are want change now need to take action to implement the change they want. Take up the challenge, go do the work that needs to be done to improve the world in the way you want it improved. 

Good luck and may the road rise to meet you.

"We don't change our work to match our tools"

Yes we do. Work changes to match the available tools all the time.

"we change our tools to match our work"

Then waste no more time seeking my approval. Go implement the change you want. Show us all how much better you implementation is and how it has improved people's lives. Nothing succeeds like success.

If this is as easy for you to implement, including features like "surely this way of sorting could be disabled in your settings" then I invite you to go implement it along with settings to turn it on and off at will.

Let us know when you are done and have proved me wrong.