Hi Bastien thanks for looking into this! I understand your general point of view. however, the proposed changes would only slow down agenda creating if org-agenda-property-list is set, right?
also, it certainly requires some insights to write org-agenda-overriding-agenda-format which could display non-special properties. hence only a user who knows what she/he is doing would run into this problem. anyway, could you propose a different approach to get this extension? I could write a new function org-scan-properties, but that would require several changes in org-agenda ... thanks again, Thomas ps: one limitation of org-agenda-columns seems to be that columns cannot be activated in two different agenda buffers simulaneously. Bastien <b...@altern.org> writes: > Hi Thomas, > > I've reviewed the proposed change. > > `org-scan-tags' already does many things beyond its name, because > a "tag" here is really a "match", which can include properties -- > see `org-make-tags-matcher' for how the "tags match" is built from > properties). > > This is handy for tags view and `org-sparse-tree'. > > In agenda, we don't need to display the properties that are part of > the tag match, as they are part of the agenda headline already. > > I don't think we should let the user add properties to the agenda > lines this way, as (1) it would make the name `org-scan-tags' even > more confusing and (2) it would probably slow down agenda creating > a lot -- `org-scan-tags' is the bottleneck for speed here. > > Also, the whole purpose of `org-agenda-columns' is precisely to see > properties in agenda, so I'd rather let the user interactively decide > if he wants to take the extra mile (and time) or not. > > 'hope this sounds reasonable enough. > > And thanks anyway for this! -- Thomas A. Gerds -- Assoc. Prof. Department of Biostatistics University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1014 Copenhagen, Denmark Office: CSS-15.2.07 (Gamle Kommunehospital) tel: 35327914 (sec: 35327901)
