http://qs1969.pair.com?node_id=23965


in reply to CTFT
in thread The Threading Dilemma

I like CTFT, at least when you are moving the discussion in a new direction. But the problem with it is that it usually means (based on the little experience I've had with perlmonks) that the title doesn't reflect what it was in response to. But this is only a problem in places that don't show an "In reply to" item, such as in "Newest node" (where I most dislike CTFT).

So I support CTFT (in many cases) but heavier use of it would make me push for addition of "in reply to" columns in several places.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
CTFT revised
by gryng (Hermit) on Jul 23, 2000 at 09:00 UTC
    Well, I agree tye! I haven't been able to check the site as often as I want to, so I haven't been paying attention to the Newest Nodes section. But yeah, if you CTFT then you will probably throw people off concering that sectionl. We should definately consider fixing this problem.

    My first thought on the matter of fixing Newest Nodes though, was that we wouldn't have room to put both the title of the post, and the refering post's title on the same line. However, it would be just as useful to mention the ultimate parent's node, rather than the immediate parent's. If this was the case, then we could sort replies based on that field (the ultimate parent), and then simply note that information once for each offending reply: 

    Replies:
[Deep Linkage]:
  [Yeah but I think...]
  [Happy birthday!]
[Arrays in Hashes]:
  [Use it like this:]
  [No no no...]

    [download]

    Which would be much more sensible (you could even space the replies, and build a tree if you wanted)

    Ciao,
    Gryn

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion