Cool!

I still believe it's rather weird to have a title saying "Regarding: Regarding: Regarding:" so if it were up to me, "Re: $original_title" would be enough with any reply (even up to a milion levels deep)

Several people, including me, very much hate node titles that don't give any hint at how deep they are in a thread. A non-"Re" node should be a root note and is usually a question or a proprosal. A "Re:" node should be a reply and is usually an answer. A "Re^2:" is usually quite different than either of the preceeding types of nodes. A "Re^15:" is quite deep in a thread and, at that point, a "Re:" showing up for the same thread means it isn't just more of the same back-and-forth that I've been ignoring.

So part of the point of this patch is to encourage people to stop removing depth indicators that several people find quite useful. The hope is that the quite compact "Re^15:" is not so bothersome as to motivate people to mess with it.

I'd rather the depth in "Re^$depth:" be calculated based on the real depth of the node in a thread, but that requires other changes.

Thanks, demerphq for implementing this.

- tye        

I'd rather the depth in "Re^$depth:" be calculated based on the real depth of the node in a thread, but that requires other changes.

Its on my todo list on the test site to do it this way. IMO there are some minor issues to resolve as I don't think the logic needed quite meshes with Everythings normal update logic.

Thanks, demerphq for implementing this.

No problem. Now that addnewform and addnewnoteform are somewhat refactored it should be easier to introduce better ways to do this.



---
demerphq


First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
-- Gandhi

The depth of a node in a thread is a property of the node, not of its title. Just like with usenet and email, I think that root nodes should be non-Re titled, and so should articles that change the title. The rest should get "Re:", and nothing more.

Abigail (this is my 4000th posting - more worthy as a profound meditation, but I've no interesting subjects to write about at the moment. Perhaps when I reach posting 5000).

As I said above one of the major advantages of this is that all the code for adding Re:'s to titles (which happens in a few places) has been refactored into a single htmlcode node which can be easily patched by the pmdev crew. So for instance if you pester one of them im sure they could whip up a user setting to do this. Personally, its not on my list though. :-( Sorry.



---
demerphq


First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
-- Gandhi

Put the ^\d+ part inside a <div class="redepth"> and people that didn't want it could make it disappear with div.redepth { display: none; }.

Another way to think about nested re's is by joining not with " ", but with "that which was". So, you'd get "Regarding that which was regarding that which was regarding $original_title".

thor

if it were up to me, "Re: $original_title" would be enough with any reply (even up to a milion levels deep)

Agreed. This reply-marking-for-subject-lines stuff has all been tried every possible way and the advantages and disadvantages of various systems discussed and rediscussed to death over the course of thirty plus years for usenet and email, and the consensus after all that was, just one "Re: " and nothing more, unless the user manually changes the subject line. I was under the impression that everyone on the internet was aware of this, until I came to Perlmonks. Replacing Re: Re: Re: with Re^3: brings us up-to-date with what newsreaders and mailreaders were experimenting with in the 1980s that was subsequently determined to be the Wrong Thing (as eventually codified in the GNKSA).

Yes, I realize Perlmonks isn't usenet, but for all practical purposes the subject lines are doing exactly the same thing, and lessons learned about subject lines there do apply just as well here. Experimenting with alternatives that the rest of the world already tried and rejected is a waste; I wasn't going to say anything about it before because I figured it was something that just hadn't been gotten around to yet, but if we're going to go to the trouble to change the behavior, the behavior to shoot for is the behavior we already know will eventually be determined to be right, I would think.

---

;$;=sub{$/};@;=map{my($a,$b)=($_,$;);$;=sub{$a.$b->()}} split//,".rekcah lreP rehtona tsuJ";$\=$;[-1]->();print

For example: "Re: &bul;Re: Re:" you said would turn into Re^4, but it's only three replies deep.

Sorry, maybe I should have been more clear. The sub add_re_to_title takes a title and adds a Re: to it, collapsing whatever Re:'s (and junk) are there. So all of the examples should be like that.



---
demerphq


First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
-- Gandhi

I know some people like to change a followup's title entirely (I'll not pass judgement on whether or not that is a good idea; I'll just point out that it happens). That would get clobbered too. Someone might not like that. ;)



Dave

but I hope most people will like it

Add me to the 'thank god at last' category :-)

Yeah dito. I just came here again after a long absence and it certainly was a pleasant surprise to find this.

Makeshifts last the longest.

No doubt some people will be upset, but I hope most people will like it, certainly a lot of folks do something like this themselves.

The option for the old behavior is the same option that was already there. You can put the "Re:"s back in by hand. q-:

Are you upset or are you asking more of a rhetorical question? I'd hope the level of outrage is low enough that the effort to support multiple options isn't required and we can have consistency. Part of the point of the patch was that several people were getting tired of the wide variations.

As for my personal preference, I'd prefer to be able to have a clue what a node is in reference to when I see the title out of context of viewing the thread that it is in. So I'd prefer you retitle replies to still start "Re" and to preserve some part of the original title (or some other representation of what the thread is about), not just summarize your particular contribution to the thread.

Your current retitling style makes sense when viewed in a thread, but makes no sense (IMO) outside of the thread.

- tye        

Are you upset or are you asking more of a rhetorical question? I'd hope the level of outrage is low enough that the effort to support multiple options isn't required and we can have consistency.

It's more rhetorical. I don't think there is any outrage as to which style of Re prefixes to adopt.

So I'd prefer .... Your current retitling style makes sense when viewed in a thread, but makes no sense (IMO) outside of the thread.

One or two monks has mentioned that to me, and no, it's not supposed to make sense outside of the thread. An editor even edited my node once to restore the Re: (I changed it back). All I can say is tough noogies (my note titles are my own). If you ask me, a better idea would be to either disallow editing of node titles on replies (notes) or track node depth independently (and perhaps represent [id://359839] as My notes title is my own₃ ).

MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"

I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).

** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

Yes, it can. If your browser is up to now several year old standards (read: anything but IE), you can use a few custom CSS rules to do that. See my Perl-blue theme for examples.

Makeshifts last the longest.

And I use Re:x2, which I feel is even more Perlish, since it's the string repetition operator :o)

But no matter, the new style is easier to edit for me than the old one, so it's an improvement.