> Kyle Meyer writes: >> Stefan Monnier writes: >> >>> Since I'm not using it, I can't really test the result in any meaningful >>> way. Furthermore, just like `calendar.el`, it relies on dynamic scoping >>> and `eval` in all kinds of ways, so it's very difficult to be sure the >>> result is "sufficiently similar" to the old behavior not to break some >>> funky use somewhere out there. >> >> I probably don't use many fancy agenda features, but I do work regularly >> from it. Running with these changes throughout today, I didn't notice >> any issues. Within the next few days, I'll try to test some non-default >> settings and more obscure features that I don't use as part of my normal >> workflow, and see if I can find any problems. > > I've continued to run with these changes and still haven't noticed any > problems. I've also tested various features (sticky agendas, block > agendas, option setting from custom commands) and didn't spot anything. > >> I'll also push the current changes to scratch/sm/agenda-lexical with the >> hope that others will test and report back. > > Has anyone else tried this out?
I'm using that branch for several days now without any problem. LGTM! I did nothing special for the test though. At least I use column mode, Org habits and interaction with calendar. Thanks! -- Marco
