everything sort is wrong in this case, how do I correct this to be more natural ?
Everything natural sort broken ?
Re: Everything natural sort broken ?
Understanding Sort Sequence 2 - Code Point
Yep, it's probably "technically" correct, but not logically - to a human.
Imagine had there been 999 of these numbered files.
To a person looking at it, expecting that single non-suffixed filename to be there at the top, before (in my case) the "... 01" file, one would be like, "where did it go?".
. (BTW, used Everything to rename the files for that ordered number list
.)
Now, suppose you had 2^64-1 files, & need to sort them, quickly.
That is something Everything can probably do (that probably cannot be accomplished by anything else).
You'd want as much efficiency as possible.
Yep, it's probably "technically" correct, but not logically - to a human.
Imagine had there been 999 of these numbered files.
To a person looking at it, expecting that single non-suffixed filename to be there at the top, before (in my case) the "... 01" file, one would be like, "where did it go?".
. (BTW, used Everything to rename the files for that ordered number list
Now, suppose you had 2^64-1 files, & need to sort them, quickly.
That is something Everything can probably do (that probably cannot be accomplished by anything else).
You'd want as much efficiency as possible.
Re: Everything natural sort broken ?
The most natural way might be to rename the suffix-less filename to "... 1".
Unfortunately any number of programs out there that "auto-number" based upon a (naming) collision, start with the basename, then add an incrementally numbered suffix, just in the manner shown.
Unfortunately any number of programs out there that "auto-number" based upon a (naming) collision, start with the basename, then add an incrementally numbered suffix, just in the manner shown.
Re: Everything natural sort broken ?
For a singular named output file (xxx.txt), where I want to retain the file (rather then overwrite), I copy the output to a temp name (xxx_out.txt), then rename that filename, as a "date", including seconds. Figuring that I would not output more then 1 file per second (so each renamed file would be unique), & if I happened to hit a duplicate name, the renamer itself would take care of that, automatically (/NODUP).
.
.
Code: Select all
rem print2file.bat 1999-06-04 SjB
rem file (xxx.txt) is created via 'P8' print driver in config.bbx
rem show the file (via sf or list or notepad or wordpad or ...)
rem copy the file to xxx_out (so that the last file "printed" will
rem remain as xxx.txt & can do a "re-run last report" do dad)
rem sequentially rename xxx_out so that it will exist & so that a
rem subsequent p2f will not erase the last file before we get to
rem review it
rem 3-22-2021 SjB
rem output in YYMM_counter format (rather then fixed 9000_counter)
rem see yearmonthday.bat for reference (as one way to do it)
rem 4-9-2021 SjB
rem echo % date % 04/09/2021
rem echo % time % 14:01:00.21, & these data/time can be "seg'd"
rem so instead of have a file name series like: 2104_1, 2104_2 ...
rem they can be like: 210409.1546.34 210409.1546.36 210409.1821.00
rem so, YYMMDD.HHMM.ss, where presumably you wouldn't end up with
rem a dup'd .ss (second) & if you happened to, then /NODUP would
rem still kick in, so you should still be good...
C:\DEV\RENAME\BRC32.exe /DIR:c:\tmp /PATTERN:xxx_out.txt /REMOVENAME /FIXEDNAME:%date:~8,2%%date:~0,2%%date:~3,2%.%time:~0,2%%time:~3,2%.%time:~6,2% /NODUP /EXECUTE
Re: Everything natural sort broken ?
' ''.'Please try including the following in your search:
sort:stemRe: Everything natural sort broken ?
Why should that make a difference though ?void wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2026 1:15 am<' ''.'
Please try including the following in your search:sort:stem
Re: Everything natural sort broken ?
The extension is ignored in the sort.
space > nothing.
space > nothing.
Re: Everything natural sort broken ?
Ok let me try sort:stem