emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [BUG] Undocumented convention for org-time-stamp-custom-formats to b


From: Tim Cross
Subject: Re: [BUG] Undocumented convention for org-time-stamp-custom-formats to be "<...>" (was: time-stamp in DONE tag is not really displayed)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 12:29:52 +1100
User-agent: mu4e 1.9.1; emacs 29.0.50

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:

> Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> writes:
>
>> My time-stamps are of the form <2022-10-23 Sun>
>> I have an entry like this 
>>
>> - State "DONE"       from "WAIT"       [2022-10-23 21:06] \\
>>
>>
>>
>> However it is displayed when I use org-toggle-time-stamp-overlays  as
>>  [23.10.%]
>>
>> Neither the year not the time is displayed, why!
>>  
>> I have set 
>> org-time-stamp-custom-formats 
>> to 
>> (" %d.%m.%Y " . " %d.%m.%Y")
>>
>> I am puzzled, any ideas?
>
> Confirmed.
>
> This is because Org expects the first and the last characters in
> org-time-stamp-custom-formats to be opening/closing brackets.
> (undocumented)
>
> Why?
> Because org-time-stamp-formats does so.
>
> Why does org-time-stamp-formats does so?
> No idea.
> This code dates back to initial Org commits.
>
> I think it would make sense to change it.
> However, if we change special treatment of the first/last characters in
> org-time-stamp-custom-formats, it will also make sense to change
> org-time-stamp-formats constant.
>
> For backwards compatibility, we will need to keep special treatment to
> strip brackets around the formats, if present.
>
> I propose to do the following:
> 1. org-time-stamp-formats and org-time-stamp-custom-formats will be
>    treated as is, unless they contain "<" and ">" and the first and the
>    last char.
> 2. If the formats do contain <...>, strip the "<" and ">".
> 3. Document (2) in the docstrings.
>
> Any objections?

Little unsure/confused regarding what is being proposed here.

- If we are removing <...>, does that mean we just retain [..] for
  inactive timestamps and all other timestamps are 'active' by default?

- How will this change impact code which distinguishes active/inactive
  timestamps based on presence/absence of <..> and [..]?

- What impact will this have on existing org files?

- Will this cause issues in parsing when you may have dates/times which
  are not supposed to be timestamps, but will look the same as
  timestamps? How will you distinguish them?

Personally, I like the clear distinction between what is a timestamp and
what isn't and what is an active timestamp and what is an inactive
timestamp.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]