View Single Post
Old 04-14-2013, 03:01 AM   #45
chaley
Grand Sorcerer
chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.chaley ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 11,734
Karma: 6690881
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Notts, England
Device: Kobo Libra 2
When you create a new VL you can click on a link to help construct a search from authors, tags, etc. I am considering adding saved searches to that list.

Question 1: is it worth the trouble? Probably, but every choice adds just that much more complexity.

Question 2: if added, then should the search text be populated with a reference to the saved search (search:"foo") or with the search that "foo" contains (e.g., author:bar or author:mumble)?

Populating with the search preserves the indirection, is both a good and bad thing. The good: the VL will follow changes to the search, which the user might expect when changing the search. The bad: the VL will follow changes to the search, which might confuse things if the user has forgotten that the search is referenced in the VL. Deleting the search will break the VL.

Copying the underlying search removes the coupling. The user would see what is happening when the VL is created, but could easily not understand the ramifications.

I tend toward copying the underlying search string in order to avoid future mysteries if the saved search is changed or deleted, but can be easily convinced to do it the other way. Thoughts?
chaley is offline   Reply With Quote