Well, I guess that could be done, as another user setting. Something like

s{(?<=Re:) \(\w+\)}{}g;
[download]

might even get the job done, although I haven't tried it enough. And then you put it through the collapse sub to put those Re:s together.

$& has its uses too, in this case it was the best way I could come up with. ;-)

---

You have moved into a dark place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

I suppose what I was wondering was why you left your match unmemorized, and then used $&. I've been lead to believe that's bad form, since once you open that Pandora's box ($`, $& and $'), all your regexes become slower as a result.

Like tadman++ noted the problem is that once you use it, all regexes anywhere in the script become slower - not likely to be tolerable in the context of the Everything engine.. And this one in particular is pretty simple: $title =~ s{((?:Re: ){2,})}{"Re(" . length($1)/4 . "): "}ge; Works a treat for your test cases.

Makeshifts last the longest.

OTOH Re: (bob) Re: Donut is different from Re: (kilroy) Re: Donut. And depersonalising takes quite a bit more sophistication...

--
perl -pew "s/\b;([mnst])/'$1/g"

Actually, if we could just all agree to get rid of "vanity re's" like "*Re" and "(its_me) Re" entirely, we would be much better off re-wise. It's terribly re-dundant.

/s

Makeshifts last the longest.

Yep, jeffa pointed out a similar example ("2Re: "). That is another good reason to have it as a user setting. It isn't meant to enforce a style upon someone, after all...

The solution would probably be to be able to set which style you prefer for out put, then have the engine look for all those cases and transforming them.

I might take a stab at it later, but for adding that extra complexity, it would have to be both viable to do, and enough people that wants it.

I had seen a few posts with Re^2 and friends, but I didn't think they were that common (plus this is more of a draft and first example). If we can have all the ways, I'm all for it. :)

Personally though, I find the Re^2: style harder to read, even though perhaps more logically correct. :)

Update:

Ok, I took the challenge. Following here is a new version, that handles both types (though not the "2Re:" style, at least not yet). It is about time to start refactoring though, it would seem, as it is getting really hairy. As a demonstration though, it will serve I think.

Now we have some new subs, instead of the old ones, we call the same ones with an added _caret for the "Re^2:" style, and _paranthesis for the "Re(2):" style. This goes for both re_collapse_* and re_add_*. As an added bonus, it will also translate from one type to the chosen one, so you can have it all your style.

Given this approach, and some refactoring, it should be possible to add yet more types. I'm not 100% sure this will hold for every possible case, but the tests I do have seems to indicate it would hold for most stuff.

It also has removed the $& as was pointed out though I din't understand why at first... doh. :) But then, is @- and @+ free from this? I hope so.

Anyhow, here it is - enjoy:

Read more... (11 kB)

sub re_collapse {
    local $_ = $_[0];

    # explode all collapsed in one go
    s{Re.(\d+).?: } { "Re: " x $1 }ge;

    # re-collapse (no pun intended)
    s{ ( (?:Re:\ ) {2,} ) } { "Re(" . length($1)/4 . "): " }xge;

    return $_;
}
[download]

Makeshifts last the longest.

While we're on the topic, why doesn't "Note Depth" work in the user settings? It appears to be hard-coded to max out at 3, despite your indicated preference. Perhaps more terse subject lines down in the murky depths would improve the look of indentation.

Matt

I *like* the duplicated Re:s. They make a nice visual representation of the depth. Numbers don't. There's a space, so browsers can wrap the text. I'm not seeing the problem here. If Re-collapsing is going to be introduced can it please be made configurable? Update - It is proposed to be configurable and not default. Maybe I should learn to read.

- Yes, I reinvent wheels.
- Spam: Visit eurotraQ.

Well, once someone's settings have collapsed the title, his note and those from everyone below his will appear collapsed regardless of their settings. Moreover, since subjects can be edited manually, you have that problem already. So there isn't much you can do for your cause, unfortunately.

Makeshifts last the longest.

Why not just leave the 'Re:'s out of the title field when submitting a post and have them added automatically after? I can see a few complications with this, but it would still be simpler than the alternatives, wouldn't it?

You know, this is why I am starting to think that one should post all their code to this site, no matter what it does, at times. Every time smart people are coming up with different approaches, and possibly better or more elegant solutions. It is far too easy to continue down the path that you started on without ever stopping to think.

One other such example is Screamer's suggestion here.

I am not sure which, if any approach is the best or even viable yet, but it is always cool to see this process take place.

The only complication I see with your suggestion is the authors names, that will be put together, even if someone else has put a post in the middle, like:

Re: (Bob) Re: Re: (Bob's bro) Re: Foo is Bar, too!
[download]

That would become:

Re(4): (Bob) (Bob's bro) Foo is Bar, too!
[download]

Which may not be what was intended. </code> Another thing is the fact that I don't really want to impose my or any others style upon others, but rather make it possible for me to display custom titles, while the titles themselves are unchanged for those that wants it raw (or some other way).

---

You have moved into a dark place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

That would destroy the possibility of changing the subject when a branch of the node has gone offtopic; or, it wouldn't, but the Re:'s would show the wrong depth then.

Makeshifts last the longest.

Nope, it would only leave the 'Re:'s out of the title field, people could still change the titles, just not the number of 'Re:'s (stripping out any leading 'Re:'s would also be an idea). The depth wouldn't be off either if it was done properly, a thread's nodes aren't grouped by their titles.

As for display, I like the Re(3): format.

Update: Oops, might have misinterpreted your post. Are you referring to when a thread goes off-topic, someone changes the title to say "An off-topic node about cheese", and then the next reply is "Re: An off-topic node about cheese?" If this is the case, you're right, with my suggestion the reply might be "Re(3): An off-topic node about cheese" instead. It's a good point, but I don't think it's a major problem.