Hi everyone, I would also agree that, while a plugin might want to implement a sortfield parameter for a hijacked version of such a core function, at least - in javascript land it does not seem to be required at all - that the core function provides a dummy entry point.
However, if there actually were plugins which assumed that - although not implemented at all - the first parameter is going to be reserved for sorting, that might turn out to be a difficult condition later. Because, hypothetically, what would happen, if in fact a different parameter was in need to be implemented, yet sortfield was not? Would that mean, that a core dev would have to implement the sorting feature as well just to be able to add that other parameter on top of it? In that case it might be the best to just leave it untouched and add a little comment - preferably at some documented core api rather than in the distributed code itself (my tastes) - that reads "not implemented". So, I guess, what it boils down to is the question - for Eric - as to whether or not indeed there now is a plugin that makes use of this first dummy parameter in its own hijacked implementation. If there isn't, I would completely agree that it should be removed for now. When it comes to sorting, I would prefer a generalized sorting algorithm on a collection of tiddlers that is implemented just the same way as it were in any other list function that makes use of it... not one that is explicitly implemented in a getMissingTiddlers function. Cheers, Tobias. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev?hl=en.
