You know, this is why I am starting to think that one should post all their code to this site, no matter what it does, at times. Every time smart people are coming up with different approaches, and possibly better or more elegant solutions. It is far too easy to continue down the path that you started on without ever stopping to think.
One other such example is Screamer's suggestion here.
I am not sure which, if any approach is the best or even viable yet, but it is always cool to see this process take place.
The only complication I see with your suggestion is the authors names, that will be put together, even if someone else has put a post in the middle, like:
Re: (Bob) Re: Re: (Bob's bro) Re: Foo is Bar, too!
That would become:
Re(4): (Bob) (Bob's bro) Foo is Bar, too!
Which may not be what was intended.
</code>
Another thing is the fact that I don't really want to impose my or any others style upon others, but rather make it possible for me to display custom titles, while the titles themselves are unchanged for those that wants it raw (or some other way).
You have moved into a dark place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue. | [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
| [reply] |
Nope, it would only leave the 'Re:'s out of the title field, people could still change the titles, just not the number of 'Re:'s (stripping out any leading 'Re:'s would also be an idea). The depth wouldn't be off either if it was done properly, a thread's nodes aren't grouped by their titles.
As for display, I like the Re(3): format.
Update: Oops, might have misinterpreted your post. Are you referring to when a thread goes off-topic, someone changes the title to say "An off-topic node about cheese", and then the next reply is "Re: An off-topic node about cheese?" If this is the case, you're right, with my suggestion the reply might be "Re(3): An off-topic node about cheese" instead. It's a good point, but I don't think it's a major problem.
| [reply] |
