Richard G Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bastien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Richard G Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> 2) What is the reason behind having to manually "refresh" after a > >> reschedule in the agenda buffer, why does it not do it automatically?
> > I think the reason is to warn you about the modification without having > > to save it. Actually reschedule often happens more than once before you > > need to save the modified buffers, so it makes sense to only save when > > you're done with all the modification... I think the reason is the principle of least surprise. If you change the priority of an item or reschedule it (e.g. to next week) it suddenly disapears on you if refresh happens automatically. I usually do a S-right a couple of times to reschedule items. Imagine what I would have to do if refresh happened automatically. I would reschedule to the next day then move the cursor to the next day, reschedule again, etc. I much prefer the current behaviour. > It doesn't really make sense because as you reschedule its easy to > forget which ones you already have rescheduled and end up trying to > reschedule an already rescheduled one. Which is exactly what happened to > me. Like other operations on the agenda it's my (noob) opinion that it > should refresh immediately or only confusion (as in this case) results. I can see your case, but think of the consequences of an immediate refresh. What happens if you reshedule a task to next week? Where should point go? To the next task? Should the point stay on the task, i.e. move to the next week? You open a can of worms. That's why a simple solution is the best. It doesn't surprise the user. HTH Christian _______________________________________________ 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
