1

I would like my all my wanderlust *Summary* buffers to be sorted by "number" in "reverse" order.

I know how to manually request a sort, but I want this specified sort order to always be the default in all cases, without my having to run any commands.

I have tried doing (setq wl-summary-default-sort-spec 'number), but it doesn't seem to alter the *Summary* buffer sort order.

I haven't found anything in the wanderlust docs about specifying this default *Summary* sort order.

Can anyone point me to docs or examples of how to make this happen?

Thank you.

HippoMan
  • 582
  • 2
  • 11

1 Answers1

2

I figured out a possible solution ...

(defun my-wl-summary-prepared-hook ()                                                                                          
  (save-excursion                                                                                                               
    (wl-summary-rescan "number" t)))                                                                                            

(add-hook 'wl-summary-prepared-hook 'my-wl-summary-prepared-hook)

I had tried 'number instead of "number", because 'number appeared in the sort spec. That didn't work. However, once I tried the string version of that symbol, this started working.

I need save-excursion, because wl-summary-rescan can move the point.

I don't know if this is the recommended way to set this default sort order, but it seems to work.

HippoMan
  • 582
  • 2
  • 11
  • There are two potential functions that I seem to recall considering when tackling it. Looking briefly at my custom setup, I see that I have modified `wl-summary-insert-sequential` so that it goes to `point-min` instead of `point-max` and I remember rebuilding all of my saved summaries. There are a few inboxes that are initially sorted out of order, and I need to manually sort them. After the initial manual sort, all new entries are inserted at `point-min` -- unless I decide to throw-out/delete my saved summary database. Once it is set setup, I have gone months without need of a manual sort – lawlist May 01 '17 at 07:10
  • I chose the above-mentioned because of the time loss that it took to otherwise resort each time new entries were added to the bottom of the buffer. By adding everything to the top of the buffer from the get-go, there is no need to ever sort -- assuming you want the newest entries at the top. In a nutshell, I resorted for a couple of years and dealt with the lost time until I had enough Emacs-foo to find and modify the above function. – lawlist May 01 '17 at 07:14
  • Inserting at `(point-min)` is indeed a good idea to prevent the need for a reverse sort. I will look into doing something similar with `wl-summary-insert-sequential`. Then, I don't have to sort by `'number` at all, since the newest messages always end up at the top of the list. – HippoMan May 01 '17 at 12:52
  • I disabled my `wl-summary-prepared-hook` and overrode `wl-summary-insert-sequential` as you described. It seems like the `*Summary*` buffer is still getting sorted somewhere else, and this combined with the `wl-summary-insert-sequential` change causes the buffer to end up in reverse order. Do you know what other wanderlust code might be sorting the `*Summary*` buffer, so I can disable that code? I'll check myself a little later, but I'm traveling soon and don't have time today. Eventually I'll find this, though. – HippoMan May 01 '17 at 18:50
  • Likely suspects would be whatever calls `wl-summary-rescan` -- a brief word-search of the code lead me to a mandatory scan if `wl-summary-cache-use` is `nil`. I'd put a message in `wl-summary-rescan` to see if it is being triggered, and then, if it is triggered, do the same thing -- word-search/grep for its usages. I also see a forced rescan in a few other circumstances ... You could also insert an `(error "stop")` and set `debug-on-error` to `t` and then the `*Backtrace*` buffer will give you a trail to follow ... if you prefer that over manually tracing with `find-function` ... – lawlist May 01 '17 at 19:42