I couldn't figure a way to make the field columns work for this many different items.
On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, Nick Dokos wrote: > Jude DaShiell <jdash...@panix.com> writes: > > > What I'm trying to do is more complex than that. > > * Reorder pills > > ** TODO order hctz, lisinipril, metformin, provacol, claritin, Co-q10, > > Deadline: <8-2-2021 +4w> > > ** TODO order Colase > > Deadline: <10-13-2021 +14w> > > ** TODO order Turmerick > > Deadline: <8-30-2021 +8w> > > > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021, Nick Dokos wrote: > > > >> Jude DaShiell <jdash...@panix.com> writes: > >> > >> > Does enough material exist on werg tutorials that document how to get a > >> > repeater operational? That or maybe I don't understand repeaters. Had > >> > the repeater I tried to use worked correctly it would have advanced the > >> > original date by 4 weeks when that date got copied down to another cell. > >> > I selected the whole line including both verticals and perhaps this works > >> > when only a time stamp is copied. > >> > > >> >> I am likely doing this wrong but will describe what has been done. > >> >> I put an agenda time stamp into a field in test.org and add +4w to the > >> >> end > >> >> of the time stamp inside the >. > >> >> I get on the left of the field column on the vertical character and type > >> >> control-space to set mark. > >> >> I move to the end of the field on the > sign and type space and another > >> >> vertical to close the column entry for that field. > >> >> Next I do control-c+x+v and am told strings are copied to the kill ring. > >> >> Next I move down one line and type control-y to yank those strings out > >> >> of > >> >> the kill buffer and paste them on that line. > >> >> When this is done, I expected the time stamp to increment by 4 weeks. > >> >> What happened was the same information got copied down and it didn't > >> >> increment. > >> >> What am I doing wrong? > >> >> > > I still don't understand: in your most recent response (at the top of this > thread) > you are talking about headlines with DEADLINE added (which seems the right > approach > to me: is there a problem with it?) But in your original mail, as well as in > the followup, you are > taling about "field columns" and "vertical characters" and "cop[ying] down to > another cell", > which seems to imply that you have an Org mode table somewhere. > > Maybe you can elaborate a bit? >
