Re: PATCH: cleanup

[Peter Stephenson <pws@pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk>]

Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> - The tag stuff. First of all, I changed the name of the style to
>   `tag-order' to make it more consistent with `group-order'. I hope
>   this is ok, or should we rename both to `sort-{groups,tags}'?

No, that's fine, I just didn't look round for comparable names.

>   Then I change the interpretion of the value of the style a bit. For
>   one, the code will normally add all offered tags as a default. But
>   you can turn that off by explicitly adding a string consisting of
>   only a minus sign to the value. This is important, I think, because
>   it can be quite tedious to always have to list all tags that are
>   used in particular contexts.

Yes, I realised that problem.  My first vague ides was to do it the other
way around:  have a '*' special value which means try any tags supplied at
that point.  But I think your way is going to be better for most people.

>   Ok, this should give us maximum flexibility. One of the many
>   questions is: is `foo()' a nice syntax or are there better ones?

It seems quite mnicely mnemonic.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk>