I know you csan do it like this, but it adds an extra function call to
the common case: right now we get by with just one function call except
when the primary sort doesn't match.
Another thing we could do is combine all the sort methods into one big
function with a loop and a case statement.
It
1. I agree that this is a good compromise for the need of sorting for
index.
* 2. And I concern a pre-mentioned sorting need - about file browser. We
need at least two levels: folder/file and then name. Could this be
considered to improve at the same time?
3. About qsort, (I don't know
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:13:13PM -0500, Daniel Eisenbud wrote:
> and then sort and sort_aux are what's used for secondary and tertiary
> sorting, or primary and secondary if threads=off. Make sense to people?
I think it would do it. (at least for me :-)
--
Christian Ordig
Germany
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 12:10:34PM -0500, Mike Schiraldi wrote:
> I suggest
> sort=thread
> sort_aux=score
> sort_aux_aux=subject
> sort_aux_aux_aux=date
> sort_aux_aux_aux_aux=...
*g* that was also my first intension ... but _who_ the hell
should count all the _aux ? :-))
--
Christian Ordig
Ge
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 02:20:34PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Feb 06, Daniel Eisenbud [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > I've been planning to do this for a while.
> >
> > It seems to me that the only time that more than two levels of sorting
> > is useful is when the firs
On Feb 06, Daniel Eisenbud [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> I've been planning to do this for a while.
>
> It seems to me that the only time that more than two levels of sorting
> is useful is when the first level is threads. If anyone can give me a
> plausible scenario where they'd want more than t
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:31:55PM -0500, darren chamberlain
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Eisenbud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect on
>02/06/2002:
> > I've been planning to do this for a while.
> >
> > It seems to me that the only time that more than two levels of
> > s
Daniel Eisenbud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something to this effect on
02/06/2002:
> I've been planning to do this for a while.
>
> It seems to me that the only time that more than two levels of
> sorting is useful is when the first level is threads. If
> anyone can give me a plausible scenario w
> threads=forward
> threads=reverse
> or
> threads=off
>
> and then sort and sort_aux are what's used for secondary and tertiary
> sorting, or primary and secondary if threads=off. Make sense to people?
I agree, and that would work for me.
KEN
msg24242/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signatur
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 10:25:43AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Which is more likely to be implemented? (I'm thinking there must have
> been a reason for only allowing two criteria in the first place, and it
> might have been to avoid the complexity of dealing with an ar
I've been planning to do this for a while.
It seems to me that the only time that more than two levels of sorting
is useful is when the first level is threads. If anyone can give me a
plausible scenario where they'd want more than three, or more than two
unthreaded, I'll think about my approach.
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:53:07PM +0100, Christian Ordig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 10:25:43AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> >sort=thread
> >sort_aux=subject
> >sort_aux2=date
> >
> > implying a fixed number of sort criteria, just more than are
> > avail
> Aside from the (IMHO good) sense of the multiple sort fields just one
> comment to the original poster. Even if implemented, I think your
> problem wouldn't be solved.
>
> When sorting by "thread/subject/date" the subject has to be the same for
> sub-sorting by date. But in your case the subje
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 10:25:43AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> >
> >sort=thread/subject/date
Aside from the (IMHO good) sense of the multiple sort fields just one
comment to the original poster. Even if implemented, I think your
problem wouldn't be solved.
When sorting by "thread/su
> is just _which_ number this should be. Imagine a mixture of your and
> my scenery ... this could result in something like:
> sort=thread
> sort_aux=score
> sort_aux2=subject
> sort_aux3=date
No, no, that syntax is all wrong.
I suggest
sort=thread
sort_aux=score
sort_aux_aux=subject
sort_aux_a
> I think a fixed maximum number would be easier to handle the question
> is just _which_ number this should be. Imagine a mixture of your and
> my scenery ... this could result in something like:
> sort=thread
> sort_aux=score
> sort_aux2=subject
> sort_aux3=date
>
> or
>
> sort=thread/score/s
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 10:25:43AM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
>sort=thread
>sort_aux=subject
>sort_aux2=date
>
> implying a fixed number of sort criteria, just more than are
> available now. Second:
>
>sort=thread/subject/date
>
> implying an arbitrary number of sort crite
> > > I guess what I'm looking for is a way to sort by thread/subject/date
> > > rather than just thread/subject. It doesn't look like I can use sort
> > > and sort_aux to do this. Anyone have a suggestion for some other way to
> > > accomplish this (other than just using procmail to put these t
On Feb 06, Christian Ordig [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 02:40:48PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > I guess what I'm looking for is a way to sort by thread/subject/date
> > rather than just thread/subject. It doesn't look like I can use sort
> > and sort_aux to do this.
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 02:40:48PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> I guess what I'm looking for is a way to sort by thread/subject/date
> rather than just thread/subject. It doesn't look like I can use sort
> and sort_aux to do this. Anyone have a suggestion for some other way to
> accomplish
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 02:40:48PM -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> I guess what I'm looking for is a way to sort by thread/subject/date
> rather than just thread/subject. It doesn't look like I can use sort
> and sort_aux to do this. Anyone have a suggestion for some other way to
> accomplish
I generally want to sort my folders by thread/date, so I use this:
folder-hook "." set sort=threads
folder-hook "." set sort_aux=date-received
However, I have a folder called "debian-general", into which I have
procmail place everything from a few different Debian mailing lists.
In this fold
22 matches
Mail list logo
