Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid

Re: Preview for "Update"

by McDarren (Abbot)
on Dec 06, 2012 at 11:14 UTC ( [id://1007536] : note . print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Preview for "Update"

Hi ww, and welcome to the monastery!

May I direct your attention to the Search box that's located at the top-left corner of every page here at PerlMonks, and suggest that you try entering the term "preview update", and then click on the adjacent button :-)

You may find this and this. And even this, which seems to suggest that we once had it, before somebody broke it and never got around to fixing it.

Anyway, enjoy your time here at the monastery.
Don't forget to always use strict; and use warnings;
And whatever you do, never, NEVER forget to use your <code> tags!


Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Preview for "Update"
by ww (Archbishop) on Dec 06, 2012 at 11:54 UTC
    And '<grin> back at you, Monsignor and author of many wise posts' :-).

    Yes, we've both been around to see this one arise before: Your first cite is from 2008; the second from 2009 and the third from 2000. While those qualify as "recently" when discussing geological time -- or even when considering events of the last decade, neither seems to have appeared nor been acted upon more recently.

    And those treads illuminate some possibilities: for example using a (later discarded) draft-reply-to oneself (almut RIP) or an alternate of using one's my scratchpad (Cardinal moritz). Yup, that's an approach, but kludgy, IMO and certainly not a very direct way of facilitating a preview.

    f00li5h admits to using the same method I've (shamefacedly) described.

    So the state of affairs remains as decribed by bofh_from_oz in Preview for Node Updates? (2005, cited by jdporter in the thread beginning at No preview on Update of a Node?...) and perhaps summed up by tye in Re: Preview for Node Updates? ( duh :), which I understand to mean that he doesn't intend to make this a personal priority (which is scarcely faultable) and that we pmdevs (some, like me, of questionable skills to do other than deal with rendering) have left the idea lie fallow if not "dropped the ball" entirely.

    Hence, I thought some merit might exist in re-raising the issue, but since, to date (and hour), your response is the only one, perhaps this is an idea of no great interest to the majority of the Monks, even tho a large proportion of the active Monks began to visit the Monastery only after the last prior discussion....

    /me trails off, still hoping for more responses.

      Take a ++ to your OP as "I agree", at least from me.
      لսႽ ᥲᥒ⚪⟊Ⴙᘓᖇ Ꮅᘓᖇ⎱ Ⴙᥲ𝇋ƙᘓᖇ