From 6f26e11bf061e37eab68c30f4c4c037625bd9c3f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "http://smcv.pseudorandom.co.uk/" Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 06:50:37 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] summarize IRC discussion --- .../conditional_preprocess_during_scan.mdwn | 22 ++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/doc/bugs/conditional_preprocess_during_scan.mdwn b/doc/bugs/conditional_preprocess_during_scan.mdwn index 254ebac22..23b9fd2cc 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/conditional_preprocess_during_scan.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/conditional_preprocess_during_scan.mdwn @@ -28,7 +28,27 @@ reprocessed is done so in the same conditions as the original call. >> upstream. >> For what it's worth, I think that my post_scan hook mechanism would work ->> rather fine with your trail plugin. However, the case of the if +>> rather fine with your trail plugin. + +>>> We discussed this on IRC, and I think it's actually more complicated +>>> than that: the branch to sort by newest inlined entry wants a +>>> "pagespecs now work" hook, whereas for trail I want a "sorting now +>>> works" hook: +>>> +>>> * scan +>>> * pagespecs now work (post-scan) +>>> * Giuseppe's version of inline can decide what each inline +>>> contains, and thus decide where they go in `inline(mtime)` +>>> order +>>> * pagespecs and sorting now work (pre-render) +>>> * my trail plugin can decide what each trail contains, and +>>> also sort them in the right order (which might be +>>> `inline(mtime)`, so might be undefined until pagespecs work) +>>> * render +>>> +>>> --[[smcv]] + +>> However, the case of the if >> directive is considerably more complicated, because the conditional >> can introduce a much stronger feedback effect in the pre/post scanning >> dependency. In fact, it's probably possible to build a couple of pages