On 9/9/07, Nuutti Kotivuori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And there wouldn't need to be any "highest" or "lowest" values for the > priorities. Also, I couldn't ever figure out why there needs to be a > way to specify the default priority explicitly (eg. [#B] vs. lines > that have none) - so I'd just vote for dropping that - no priority > listed if the priority is zero. > > This way I could always set some task on a higher priority if > necessary, or a lower one - and I'd only have problems if I need to > have something in between priorities (if we don't go for float values > ;)), but that should be easily solvable by a bit of preplanning or > just editing a few task priorities.
Terve, Nuutti, I often use priorities, but I would rather call them some other way, since this name is somewhat misleading. For example, my reading diary has the following header: #+PRIORITIES: 1 9 5 and I rate the read books from 1 to 9. I leave the books unrated till I finish reading. So, to equal missing priority to a default priority would break this system. -- With best regards, Dmitri Minaev Russian history blog: http://minaev.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
