From d5a3335e15cc2203dd357e6e55fa9d15bc39a181 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "http://smcv.pseudorandom.co.uk/" Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 14:36:31 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] this is meant to work like Jon expected it would --- ...ments_are_not_sorted_by_their_date_attribute.mdwn | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/bugs/Comments_are_not_sorted_by_their_date_attribute.mdwn b/doc/bugs/Comments_are_not_sorted_by_their_date_attribute.mdwn index 23ddc01b6..a656a33a0 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/Comments_are_not_sorted_by_their_date_attribute.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/Comments_are_not_sorted_by_their_date_attribute.mdwn @@ -11,6 +11,11 @@ The presentation of the resulting comments is not sorted by this date, which I w > Yes, comments are displayed via an inline, and usual [[pagespec/sorting]] > (eg, default of when the file was first seen) is used. The comment > date only affects the date displayed. +> +> > That's not what I intended - it's meant to be more or less just +> > syntactic sugar for `\[[!meta date=foo]]`, setting the `%pagectime`. +> > The code looks as though it ought to work, but perhaps it's buggy? +> > --[[smcv]] > > The only time I've seen this be much problem personally is when moving > a page, which means moving its comments directory, which tends to @@ -34,3 +39,10 @@ The presentation of the resulting comments is not sorted by this date, which I w >> >> In my current situation, I could live with by-filename ordering. By-title >> ordering would also be workable. — [[Jon]] + +>>> I agree with Jon's reasons for embedding an explicit date in the file. +>>> As I said, this is *meant* to work, but it might not. +>>> +>>> Sorting by filename would only be useful with +>>> [[!cpan Sort::Naturally]], since normal `cmp` ordering would break pages +>>> with more than 9 comments. --s -- 2.26.2