Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes: > David Masterson <dsmaster...@gmail.com> writes: > >>>> Maybe I'm not explicit enough. In section 8.1 of the Org 9.6 manual is >>>> a subsection "Time/Date Range" that *implies* times are supported in >>>> ranges by the use of words "time" and "timestamp" when, above, you're >>>> saying they are undefined (unsupported?) for now. I'm merely saying >>>> adjust the manual to remove the implication. >>> >>> Please check the manual from main branch of Org. It has more text: >> >> I disagree. I cloned Org from Savannah and made the attached patch >> file from the main branch. First time for me attaching a file to a >> message. Does it work for you? > > Yes. Though it would be better to attach the diff with proper (.diff or > .patch) extension.
I hope you saw that I provided a "patch,txt" file in a following message (forgot about the naming convention -- been a long time...) > Even better would be providing commit message and formatting the patch > properly. See https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contribute.html#first-patch > Not mandatory though - I can format things properly on your behalf. Thank you. I haven't "patched" anything on Savannah and assumed I might have to do the GNU copyright assignment. For this, I thought it would be easy for you. >> - Two timestamps connected by =--= denote a range. >> + Two timestamps connected by =--= denote a date range. NOTE: time is >> + not specified in these timestamps -- just dates, > > I'd avoid this NOTE. Time is actually allowed, but agenda does nothing > with it. But only agenda. The rest of Org will handle date ranges like > <2023-06-10 Sat 14:00>--<2023-06-12 Mon 18:00> correctly. > >> -#+cindex: timestamps >> -#+cindex: ranges, time >> -#+cindex: date stamps >> -#+cindex: deadlines >> -#+cindex: scheduling > > Is there any particular reason why you removed index entries here and > further in the diff? No, there isn't. I think what happened here is that I noticed section 8.1 in org-guide and org-manual were almost (but not quite) the same. I assumed (incorrectly?) that they were supposed to be the same, but got out of sync. So I made my patch to org-guide and then replaced section 8.1 in org-manual with the one from org-guide. I think these "cindex" statements got dropped because of that. If they are important in org-manual, but not org-guide, then please put them back. >> A timestamp may contain a /repeater interval/, indicating that it >> applies not only on the given date, but again and again after >> - a certain interval of N hours (h), days (d), weeks (w), months (m), >> - or years (y). The following shows up in the agenda every Wednesday: >> + a certain interval of N days (d), weeks (w), months (m), or years >> + (y). The following shows up in the agenda every Wednesday: > > Why did you remove hours? Oh! Another difference between org-guide and org-manual that came over in trying to resync the two. >> For more complex date specifications, Org mode supports using the >> - special expression diary entries implemented in the >> - [[info:emacs#Special Diary Entries][Emacs Calendar package]][fn:20]. >> - For example, with optional time: >> + special expression diary entries implemented in the Emacs Calendar >> + package. For example, with optional time: > > Why did you remove the links and the footnote? Again, another diff between org-guide and org-manual, :-\ I'm relooking at this patch. Testing finds that these work in the timegrid agenda as expected: * <2023-02-03 Thu 10:00-11:00>--<2023-02-04 Fri 10:00-11:00> ** Can't mark one done -- you have to mark them all done *** Kind of expected for this form * <2023-02-03 Thu 10:00-11:00 +1d> ** Can you limit the number of repeats? If so, how? ** Marking it DONE removes current one from agenda *** reasonable I have to rethink section 8.1. With the above in mind, 8.1 is not quite right, but it's more subtle than I thought. Not sure how in the weeds it should get for a user's manual. -- David Masterson
