David Masterson writes:
>> Ambiguous is: consider a task IN-PROCESS and you press S-left. Should
>> Org go to TODO or to WAIT? Org will choose one, but there are no defined
>> rules.
>
> Ah. Could Org offer a choice of TODO or WAIT (a la Ido style)?
If you need that choice, just use C-c C-t. I
David Masterson writes:
> What I've been saying is that, except for simple sequences, cycling will
> get you into trouble with notes as a lazy person (aren't we all?) may
> cycle thru something unintended.
As any other Org feature, this one is useful for some people. And not
useful for others. Y
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> David Masterson writes:
>
>> The problem is (I think), when you attach @ or ! to the state and, as you
>> cycle thru (S-right), new unintended notes will be added as you cycle to
>> the state you're looking for. True?
>
> If you attach @ or !, those notes are not uninte
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> David Masterson writes:
>
>>> #+TODO: WAIT IN-PROCESS
>>> #+TODO: TODO IN-PROCESS | DONE
>>
>>> Note, however, that moving S- will be ambiguous.
>>
>> Ambiguous or not possible?
>
> Ambiguous is: consider a task IN-PROCESS and you press S-left. Should
> Org go to TODO or
Ihor Radchenko writes:
> David Masterson writes:
>
>> The problem is (I think), when you attach @ or ! to the state and, as you
>> cycle thru (S-right), new unintended notes will be added as you cycle to
>> the state you're looking for. True?
>
> If you attach @ or !, those notes are not uninte
David Masterson writes:
>> #+TODO: WAIT IN-PROCESS
>> #+TODO: TODO IN-PROCESS | DONE
>
> This is on a per-file basis, correct? This can't be done in
> org-todo-keywords?
It can. You can have multiple 'sequence-s there.
>> Note, however, that moving S- will be ambiguous.
>
> Ambiguous or not p
David Masterson writes:
> The problem is (I think), when you attach @ or ! to the state and, as you
> cycle thru (S-right), new unintended notes will be added as you cycle to
> the state you're looking for. True?
If you attach @ or !, those notes are not unintended.
S-right is not for you to pl
Ihor Radchenko writes:
F> David Masterson writes:
>
>> I'm not sure I understand 'sequence' and 'type' in org-todo-keywords.
>> In particular, I can only think of the following simple sequence as
>> being possible in org-todo-keywords:
>>
>> TODO -> IN-PROCESS -> DONE
>>
>> If I want to add in (
Daniel Fleischer writes:
> Daniel Fleischer [2023-01-17 Tue 10:10] wrote:
>
>> Don't let the cyclical switching dictates the meaning, it's just an
>> implementation detail, done for simplicity. Hope it helped.
>
> Put another way, if you define A B | C D E
>
> and the UI switching is A->B->C->D->
David Masterson writes:
> I'm not sure I understand 'sequence' and 'type' in org-todo-keywords.
> In particular, I can only think of the following simple sequence as
> being possible in org-todo-keywords:
>
> TODO -> IN-PROCESS -> DONE
>
> If I want to add in (say) WAITING, the graph (represented
Daniel Fleischer [2023-01-17 Tue 10:10] wrote:
> Don't let the cyclical switching dictates the meaning, it's just an
> implementation detail, done for simplicity. Hope it helped.
Put another way, if you define A B | C D E
and the UI switching is A->B->C->D->E->A
it doesn't mean the B going into
David Masterson writes:
> I'm not sure I understand 'sequence' and 'type' in org-todo-keywords.
You're over thinking it. You can define various todo keywords and they
are divided into two groups that can be thought of as "ones that need
your attention" and "ones that don't need your attention" a
I'm not sure I understand 'sequence' and 'type' in org-todo-keywords.
In particular, I can only think of the following simple sequence as
being possible in org-todo-keywords:
TODO -> IN-PROCESS -> DONE
If I want to add in (say) WAITING, the graph (represented as a table)
becomes:
i\o | TODO | I
13 matches
Mail list logo
