On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:01:35AM -0500, Daniel Eisenbud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 06:37:01AM -0500, David T-G
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > % 1 foo
> > % 2 |-?->bar
> > % 3 | `->baz
> > % 4 |->grault
> > % 5 `->quux
> > %
> > % if $sort_aux is set to date, it is possible that bar is before grault
> > % and quux, but baz is after both of them. So with the question mark
> > % removed, the thread tree would look like
> > %
> > % 1 foo
> > % 2 |->bar
> > % 3 |->baz
> > % 4 |->grault
> > % 5 `->quux
> > %
> > % and baz would appear to be in the wrong place. Additionally,
> >
> > Why wouldn't it be
> >
> > 1 foo
> > 2 |->bar
> > 3 | `->baz
> > 4 |->grault
> > 5 |->quux
> >
> > instead? Or is the answer simply "that's the way the code is written"?
> >
> > Thanks for the example, though; I'm still working on it :-)
>
> The answer is "because that would be even more of a lie." Baz isn't a
> child of bar. I know we do this for duplicates, for lack of anything
> better to do, but we mark it, at least.
I should add that in my new patch, when $hide_missing is unset, the
question marks are displayed, and when it's set, the display looks like
1 foo
2 |--->bar
3 | `->baz
4 |->grault
5 `->quux
But that this is the one circumstance that there's still an indication
of where the missing messages are, even with $hide_missing set. I hope
(and think) that people will be happy with this compromise.
-Daniel
--
Daniel E. Eisenbud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"We should go forth on the shortest walk perchance, in the spirit of
undying adventure, never to return,--prepared to send back our embalmed
hearts only as relics to our desolate kingdoms."
--Henry David Thoreau, "Walking"
