Bastien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Egli Christian (KIRO 41)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I think the reason is the principle of least surprise. > > Agreed. That's also why rescheduling should perhaps leave some > persistent warning in the agenda buffer (as S-left/right does). > I guess it would solve the issue Richard was concerned about.
Most 100% certainly. See the other reply. The S-<left,right> functionality is spot on. As a noob I believe I am more likely to spot these inconsistencies that established users. The other reply might have been private so I include it below: ,---- | While I can understand that, it certainly surprises the user to try and | reschedule a task that isn't really there. I would suggest that the only | sensible and usable and consistent thing to do is to mark it as changed | like with the S-<left,right> .. in this case it hilites the entry as | changed but you can continue to work on it. And then refresh (r) | obviously moves all tasks to their correct positions while leaving the | cursor at the current/next line. | | The functionality for S-<lft,right> is perfect. `---- _______________________________________________ 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
