Samuel Wales <samolog...@gmail.com> writes: > i was merely trying to get a sense of the degree to which it is a > drop-in replacement (which i think you have said it is not).
Right, it doesn't do everything Org Agenda does. Since Org Agenda does also serve as a kind of "search view," org-ql can largely serve as a replacement for that aspect of it, providing several advantages. But it doesn't implement the daily/weekly-style agenda view, so it doesn't replace that part of it. I'll probably refactor and rename it soon, removing "agenda" from the name to reduce confusion. In the future I may work on an a daily/weekly-style view as well, which might again be called org-ql-agenda. > the question is whether the display can be made similar enough to a > highly customized traditional agenda so that diff of the agenda buffer > can find any bugs in either traditional or ql agenda. In some cases, perhaps, but while I do want to add more features from Org Agenda, my goal isn't necessarily to reproduce it in every aspect. > respecting things like org-agenda-inactive-leader will reduce the need > to munge in order to make them similar enough. not a big deal. That's an interesting feature. If I do support it in the future, it will probably come after implementing a more complex Agenda-like view that will be quite different from Org Agenda. > adding text properties like the agenda does is great for that too as a > lot of user code likely uses them. so that will stop actual breakage. Yes, with respect to text properties, I do intend to copy what Org Agenda does, for the most part. Thanks for your feedback.
