From b186ec1b4cb8145d6a6cb68478e23d7fb0fa1476 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "http://smcv.pseudorandom.co.uk/" <http://smcv.pseudorandom.co.uk/@web>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:02:18 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] ready for review, I think

---
 .../allow_plugins_to_add_sorting_methods.mdwn | 51 ++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/todo/allow_plugins_to_add_sorting_methods.mdwn b/doc/todo/allow_plugins_to_add_sorting_methods.mdwn
index 0aca74be2..d4da13feb 100644
--- a/doc/todo/allow_plugins_to_add_sorting_methods.mdwn
+++ b/doc/todo/allow_plugins_to_add_sorting_methods.mdwn
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ That earlier version of the branch is also available for comparison:
 
 >> I wonder if IkiWiki would benefit from the concept of a "sortspec", like a [[ikiwiki/PageSpec]] but dedicated to sorting lists of pages rather than defining lists of pages?  Rather than defining a sort-hook, define a SortSpec class, and enable people to add their own sort methods as functions defined inside that class, similarly to the way they can add their own pagespec definitions. --[[KathrynAndersen]]
 
->>> [[!template id=gitbranch branch=smcv/sort-package author="[[Simon_McVittie|smcv]]"]]
+>>> [[!template id=gitbranch branch=smcv/ready/sort-package author="[[Simon_McVittie|smcv]]"]]
 >>> I'd be inclined to think that's overkill, but it wasn't very hard to
 >>> implement, and in a way is more elegant. I set it up so sort mechanisms
 >>> share the `IkiWiki::PageSpec` package, but with a `cmp_` prefix. Gitweb:
@@ -207,7 +207,26 @@ Unfortunatly, I think that c is closest to the new implementation.
 >     }
 >
 > which would mean that the comparison used `$IkiWiki::SortSpec::a`.
->
+> --s
+
+>> I've now done this. On a wiki with many [[plugins/contrib/album]]s
+>> (a full rebuild takes half an hour!), I tested a refresh after
+>> `touch tags/*.mdwn` (my tag pages contain inlines of the form
+>> `tagged(foo)` sorted by date, so they exercise sorting).
+>> I also tried removing sorting from `pagespec_match_list`
+>> altogether, as an upper bound for how fast we can possibly make it.
+>>
+>> * `master` at branch point: 63.72user 0.29system
+>> * `master` at branch point: 63.91user 0.37system
+>> * my branch, with `@_`: 65.28user 0.29system
+>> * my branch, with `@_`: 65.21user 0.28system
+>> * my branch, with `$a`: 64.09user 0.28system
+>> * my branch, with `$a`: 63.83user 0.36system
+>> * not sorted at all: 58.99user 0.29system
+>> * not sorted at all: 58.92user 0.29system
+>>
+>> --s
+
 > I do notice that `pagespec_match_list` performs the sort before the
 > filter by pagespec. Is this a deliberate design choice, or
 > coincidence? I can see that when `limit` is used, this could be
@@ -218,7 +237,15 @@ Unfortunatly, I think that c is closest to the new implementation.
 
 >> Yes, it was deliberate, pagespec matching can be expensive enough that
 >> needing to sort a lot of pages seems likely to be less work. (I don't
->> remember what benchmarking was done though.) --[[Joey]] 
+>> remember what benchmarking was done though.) --[[Joey]]
+
+>>> We discussed this on IRC and Joey pointed out that this also affects
+>>> dependency calculation, so I'm not going to get into this now... --s
+
+Joey pointed out on IRC that the `titlesort` feature duplicates all the
+meta titles. I did that in order to sort by the unescaped version, but
+I've now changed the branch to only store that if it makes a difference.
+--s
 
 ## Documentation from sort-package branch
 
@@ -262,13 +289,13 @@ Similarly, it's possible to write plugins that add new functions as
 the IkiWiki::SortSpec package named `cmp_foo`, which will be used when sorting
 by `foo` or `foo(...)` is requested.
 
-The function will be passed three or more parameters. The first two are
-page names, and the third is `undef` if invoked as `foo`, or the parameter
-`"bar"` if invoked as `foo(bar)`. It may also be passed additional, named
-parameters.
+The names of pages to be compared are in the global variables `$a` and `$b`
+in the IkiWiki::SortSpec package. The function should return the same thing
+as Perl's `cmp` and `<=>` operators: negative if `$a` is less than `$b`,
+positive if `$a` is greater, or zero if they are considered equal. It may
+also raise an error using `error`, for instance if it needs a parameter but
+one isn't provided.
 
-It should return the same thing as Perl's `cmp` and `<=>` operators: negative
-if the first argument is less than the second, positive if the first argument
-is greater, or zero if they are considered equal. It may also raise an
-error using `error`, for instance if it needs a parameter but one isn't
-provided.
+The function will also be passed one or more parameters. The first is
+`undef` if invoked as `foo`, or the parameter `"bar"` if invoked as `foo(bar)`;
+it may also be passed additional, named parameters.
-- 
2.26.2