hello, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>>> Now, we might make its contents by marking them as verbatim, for >>> example. E.g., >>> >>> - Rescheduled from =[2019-02-05 Tue .1m]= on [2018-09-29 Sat 18:50] >> >> that's not a bad idea, but what about the other way round? >> >> that is, inactive timestamps with repeaters do not update unless they are >> marked as you suggest. this way current workflows are not affected and >> inactive timestamps can be made to update if requested. > > The other way around is not possible because =...= means "verbatim". > This would be contradictory. i see. i didn't know =...= meant verbatim. so in light of this new knowledge :) your solution makes a lot of sense. i was originally opposed to it because it means current documents will have to change to add =...= but in the end it seems the simplest. > The main question is: what to do with an "inactive time stamp with > repeater". > > The original report, that lead to the incriminated commit, emphasized > the "repeater" part, arguing a repeater should induce the time stamp is > meant to be repeated, notwithstanding its nature. > > You are emphasizing the "inactive" part of it, arguing that anything > inactive should not change dynamically. > > Both arguments can be heard. I agree yours is more conservative. Yet, > I'd like to hear about a solution than can satisfy both. I'm Cc'ing the > OP. i'm ok going with the verbatim syntax - rescheduled lines will now look like (w/o the double quotes?): - Rescheduled from =[2019-02-05 Tue .1m]= on [2018-09-29 Sat 18:50] > I'm trying to keep Org as simple as possible, but different users have > different use cases, and, in some annoying situations like this one, > these use cases conflict. we are ever grateful. best, -cm
