[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#13882: 24.2; saveplace.el limit drop least recently used

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: bug#13882: 24.2; saveplace.el limit drop least recently used
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 02:13:45 +0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3

On 08.03.2013 1:20, Karl Fogel wrote:
Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden> writes:
Karl, do you think this consideration is still important? I don't see a
reasonable way to keep the list easy to merge and still retain the
"most-recently used" information.

You either keep the list unsorted (and continually shuffle the
elements), or store some timestamps, which will also be a source of
merge conflicts.

Hmmm.  I see your point, and, of course, there are arguments both ways.

We could supply an user-option to control the behavior, but that still
leaves the question of which default we should choose...

However, I think the answer to that is also clear: unsorted should be
the default (or rather, chronologically sorted should be the default),
and if a user wants the list alphabetized (for merge purposes), they can
configure it so.  And this would be documented not only in the new
variable, but also in the doc string of `save-place-limit'.

What do you think?

We can do it this way, of course.

But I imagine that merging of place files can only be a once-in-a-while occurrence, and at all other times the user would prefer the chronological sorting (if they were aware of this issue, at all).

So maybe we should provide an export command instead, that would save the sorted places list to a file specified by the user, to do as they please.

Let's also ask the original reporter. Iain, any opinion?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]