On 11/17/2010 3:16 AM, Carsten Dominik wrote:
Hi I.S.
I have not added you patch as it is, because in some ways the syntax
it adds is
questionable, and, as others have pointed out, sorting can be done in
different ways, too.
However, instead, I have introduced a variable that can be set to a
Hi I.S.
I have not added you patch as it is, because in some ways the syntax
it adds is
questionable, and, as others have pointed out, sorting can be done in
different ways, too.
However, instead, I have introduced a variable that can be set to a
user-defined function to compute the base
I would use tags to accomplish the same thing as enhanced priorities.
User-defined sorting allows this in both the agenda and the outline.
Maybe somebody can summarize the benefits of enhanced priorities over
more priorites, tags, properties, etc.?
___
On 11/15/2010 7:07 AM, Juan Pechiar wrote:
I'm against feature-itis.
Orgmode has been losing some of its elegance to feature requests. And
by 'elegance' I mean ease of learning and using and maintaining, and
not having to decide between N different ways of achieving something
just because so man
On Nov 15, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Juan Pechiar wrote:
I'm against feature-itis.
Orgmode has been losing some of its elegance to feature requests.
Do you have concrete examples? Maybe we can correct mistakes?
- Carsten
And
by 'elegance' I mean ease of learning and using and maintaining, and
no
I'm against feature-itis.
Orgmode has been losing some of its elegance to feature requests. And
by 'elegance' I mean ease of learning and using and maintaining, and
not having to decide between N different ways of achieving something
just because so many border-case features exist.
The agenda is
Hi everyone,
I would like to have a show of hands who is interested in this
treatment of finer priorities. Should we add this patch (I don't vote
because I do not use priorities)
Thanks!
- Carsten
On Oct 29, 2010, at 1:53 PM, I.S. wrote:
Sorry, previous patch had some junk in it. Attach
Sorry, previous patch had some junk in it. Attached is the final version
(really).
Sorry again for the confusion,
-I.S.
On 10/29/2010 7:45 AM, I.S. wrote:
Sorry, I realized the previous patch did not contain updates to the
org-priority-regexp. An updated patch is attached.
Sorry,
-I.S.
On
Sorry, I realized the previous patch did not contain updates to the
org-priority-regexp. An updated patch is attached.
Sorry,
-I.S.
On 10/27/2010 8:01 AM, I.S. wrote:
On 10/24/2010 3:18 PM, David Maus wrote:
At Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:14:39 -0400,
I.S. wrote:
Dear Experts,
I'd like to propose
On 10/24/2010 3:18 PM, David Maus wrote:
At Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:14:39 -0400,
I.S. wrote:
Dear Experts,
I'd like to propose a replacement for the org-get-priority function
which is backward compatible with the current version but allows the
user to add a sub-priority such as [#A]-5 or [#B]+3:
At Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:14:39 -0400,
I.S. wrote:
> Priorities of the form [#]- or [#]+
> are supported with +/- being optional and modifying the
> letter priority. The letter priority is multiplied by 10 and
> then the number priority is added on. Thus a priority string of
> [#B]+5 is higher th
At Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:14:39 -0400,
I.S. wrote:
>
> Dear Experts,
>
> I'd like to propose a replacement for the org-get-priority function
> which is backward compatible with the current version but allows the
> user to add a sub-priority such as [#A]-5 or [#B]+3:
>
Could you provide a patch agains
Dear Experts,
I'd like to propose a replacement for the org-get-priority function
which is backward compatible with the current version but allows the
user to add a sub-priority such as [#A]-5 or [#B]+3:
(defun org-get-priority (s)
"Find priority cookie and return priority.
Priorities of t
13 matches
Mail list logo
