by Michael S. Kaplan, published on 2006/05/24 06:01 -04:00, original URI: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/michkap/archive/2006/05/24/605599.aspx
Mike Sheldon is one of the smartest guys I know.
You may have seen him on Channel 9 talking about Windows Shell Architecture with fellow architect Chris Guzak.
And at least two people divined that he was the 'Mike' I credited in this post for his help with sublassing, Shell team style.
He has done a lot of other cool stuff too, but one of the very interesting jobs he has as an Architect on Shell team is in balancing the need for correct functionality with the need for backward compatible behavior.
He has been one of the people to work on when and how best to integrate some of the feedback that has come up before in this blog (though I have to admit that those blog posts were inspired by conversations at least as often as it actually inspired them!).
Yesterday, he sent some mail asking about how to handle a particular string comparison situation. Working through the scenario, in the end it boiled down to choosing between two different options:
Some will recognize this as the situation that has come up here before in posts such as Comparison confusion: INVARIANT vs. ORDINAL and Invariant and Ordinal Redux.
Of course a lot has been learned since then, including the different nature of testing for equality versus ordering. And it made sense to really cover the differences between these two very different methods to decide the best one to use.
Here are the basic differences, summarized:
Of course this does lead to the mildly ironic situation where you do not call the function named CompareStringOrdinal when you want to figure out the order of things. But I have talked about the name weirdness before so I won't bore anyone by talking about it again. :-)
Now armed with this knowedge, Mike is able to make sure the Shell is doing the right thing in many of its own string comparison needs!
This post brought to you by "ʏ" (U+028f, a.k.a. LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL Y)
Michael S. Kaplan on 24 May 2006 10:16 AM:
go to newer or older post, or back to index or month or day