From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-28 14:07:24
Joaquín Mª López Muñoz <joaquin_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams ha escrito:
>> Joaquín Mª López Muñoz <joaquin_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > I've noticed entries do not follow any definite order. Print
>> > publications
>> > are more or less sorted by year, but other sections are seemingly listed
>> > at random.
>> > I propose the following:
>> > * Inside each section, sort lexicographically by year and author, for
>> > instance online mentions would get like this
>> > [Burnap02]
>> > [Curran02]
>> > [Siek02b]
>> > [Casad03]
>> > [Lischner03]
>> > [Stein04]
>> I think it will be easier for people to find things if it's sorted by
>> author and year instead.
> Well, my rationale is that older entries tend to get obsolete, so the
> reader can concentrate on the fresher entries at the end of each
> section. But I can apply whatever policy we agree to adhere to.
>> I guess if you leave a blank line between years it might help.
> ?? Isn't this last suggestion contradictory with having the entries
> sorted first by author?
Yes. If you want to sort by year first, the sorting scheme would
become clearer with a blank line between years.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk