|
From: | Carsten Dominik |
Subject: | Re: [Orgmode] proposal for enhanced org-get-priority function |
Date: | Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:16:52 +0100 |
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 priority of a node. So you can simply put your function into that variable and continue to use your special syntax, with us making it an official Org syntax.
The name of the variable is org-get-priority-function. I hope this helps. - Carsten On Nov 15, 2010, at 7:05 PM, I.S. wrote:
On 11/15/2010 7:07 AM, Juan Pechiar wrote:That may be a fair point (although I tend to think that most of the features in orgmode are really useful). I'd like to point out, however, that the proposed change is completely backward compatible. If you don't want finer grained priorities, just don't add -<NUM>.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 for things you have to do today. Just do them. If you need ordering, you have outlines and lists, properties, LISP, hooks, column view, custom agenda views, etc. Regards, .j. On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:25:30AM +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:I would like to have a show of hands who is interested in this treatment of finer priorities.Personally, I vote yes because I find the priorities in TODO lists very useful. In addition, I often find that I want to insert a new item between two existing ones and therefore having fine-grained priorities makes this easy to do.-- Thanks, -I.S.
- Carsten
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |