diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/todo/allow_plugins_to_add_sorting_methods.mdwn | 51 |
1 files 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. |