On 11/4/05, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
Rowan Collins wrote:
I'd been pondering this myself recently, but it looks like it doesn't
- and probably can't - know its ID soon enough. Not only does the
Revision object not get an ID until the insert function (obviously too
late for text manipulation) but it has to actually be saved in MySQL
for the autoincrement field to autoincrement. [...etc.etc.etc.]
All throughout this you're assuming that the diff link, or indeed
anything that isn't the comment proper, would have to be part of the
comment text. I understand this assumption may seem self-evident because
this is the way signatures are done on Talk pages now, but from a
development point of view, it's a dangerous assumption to make because
it will clearly lead to an extremely bad implementation.
I don't agree. We're talking about a new feature which would be useful
for a number of things and is somewhat orthogonal to the threads
discussion here. However, it would also be useful for threads so long
as people make a difflink containing signature a part of their
comment. I don't think that it's an unreasonable request... What it
might get us to is a 90% solution which reduces the cost of change
detection, ... which mostly kills the arguments about comment
alteration without really changing what we are doing.