Subject: Re: bug#13882: 24.2; saveplace.el limit drop least recently used

From: Karl Fogel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:09:11 -0500

Kevin Ryde <[email-masked]> writes:
>Karl Fogel <[email-masked]> writes:
>> However, I think the answer to that is also clear: unsorted should be
>> the default (or rather, chronologically sorted should be the default),
>> and if a user wants the list alphabetized (for merge purposes), they can
>> configure it so.
>
>You'd be very tempted to let them put it through the sort program or
>sort func themselves, not have any option at all.

?  Sorry; I didn't understand the above.  Are you saying I personally
would be tempted to do that, or that in the abstract one would be
tempted to do that?

How would the user hook in to run the sort, unless we provide some
option in saveplace.el?  (We don't generally expect users to modify the
source code of core Emacs packages.)

>In a merge you presumably still want the most-recent 400 visits, or
>whatever limit, which would require per-entry timestamps to do properly.
>And if you're not limiting it then I imagine there's no need to sort,
>just concat the lot.
>
>I wondered how well the simple save-place-loaded bit works when you've
>got two running copies of emacs.  I suppose the save places of the last
>one to exit will overwrite anything the others saved.  That wasn't the
>aim of the "merge" was it?

Um.  Can you say the above more verbosely?  I'm not really understanding
how many different topics you're addressing, nor what changes you're
proposing... I'm happy to address a concrete proposal, I'm just having
trouble understanding exactly what you're saying above.  (It could be
because I'm a bit sick right now; apologies if my brain isn't working
right...)

-Karl