[MPlayer-cvslog] CVS: main AUTHORS,1.176,1.177

[The Wanderer]

Rich Felker wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 02:06:59PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> Rich Felker wrote:

>>> Me too. I vote to correct it. Modern usage is sorting in ordinary
>>> order by how the name is written (look what cell phones do for
>>> instance..). I hate legacy collation rules.
>> 
>> I vote to keep it, surname first. (Not all cell phones sort the way
>> you note, although I don't have a counterexample handy to cite.)
>> 
>> As I understand matters, the primary rationale behind this 'rule'
>> is that it is far more likely that two people will have the same
>> personal name/first name than it is that they will have the same
>> surname, and so
> 
> This is nonsense. It's totally dependent on the particular language
> and the opposite is actually true in many cases.

That's as may be. It's still the rationale behind, for instance, sorting
books in a library or bookstore by the surname rather than the personal
name of the author.

Now that I come back to this again, I notice that there are actually two
separate issues involved: which name you sort on first, and which name
you actually list first. In the former case, I stand very strongly
behind giving the surname priority over the personal name; in the latter
case, I have no strong preference one way or the other.

> The primary reason behind the 'rule' you talk about is pure
> patriarchialism. Nothing more. And it's lame.

...I fail utterly to see how "patriarchalism" has anything to do with
it. Provincialism, maybe, but...

> Besides, do you know people by their first names or their family
> names?

Both, most of the time. Depending, of course, on what you mean by
"know".

> First names of course. So that's what you expect to find them by when
> reading the file.

Speak for yourself. I either "expect" to find them by surname, or
"expect" to find them *in whatever way they happen to be listed* - as
long as it is comprehensible, which surname-first certainly is.

> BTW it used to be in the correct order until someone changed it
> around like this...

I'd say that that would have been done because the changer did not
consider the previously existing order to have been correct. I,
personally, probably would not.

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.