emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Is this proper time format?


From: David Masterson
Subject: Re: Is this proper time format?
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2023 17:01:25 -0700
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:

> David Masterson <dsmasterson@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> Maybe I'm not explicit enough.  In section 8.1 of the Org 9.6 manual is
>>>> a subsection "Time/Date Range" that *implies* times are supported in
>>>> ranges by the use of words "time" and "timestamp" when, above, you're
>>>> saying they are undefined (unsupported?) for now.  I'm merely saying
>>>> adjust the manual to remove the implication.
>>>
>>> Please check the manual from main branch of Org. It has more text:
>>
>> I disagree. I cloned Org from Savannah and made the attached patch
>> file from the main branch.  First time for me attaching a file to a
>> message.   Does it work for you?
>
> Yes. Though it would be better to attach the diff with proper (.diff or
> .patch) extension.

I hope you saw that I provided a "patch,txt" file in a following message
(forgot about the naming convention -- been a long time...)

> Even better would be providing commit message and formatting the patch
> properly. See https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contribute.html#first-patch
> Not mandatory though - I can format things properly on your behalf.

Thank you.  I haven't "patched" anything on Savannah and assumed I might
have to do the GNU copyright assignment.  For this, I thought it would
be easy for you.

>> -  Two timestamps connected by =--= denote a range.
>> +  Two timestamps connected by =--= denote a date range.  NOTE: time is
>> +  not specified in these timestamps -- just dates,
>
> I'd avoid this NOTE. Time is actually allowed, but agenda does nothing
> with it. But only agenda. The rest of Org will handle date ranges like
> <2023-06-10 Sat 14:00>--<2023-06-12 Mon 18:00> correctly.
>
>> -#+cindex: timestamps
>> -#+cindex: ranges, time
>> -#+cindex: date stamps
>> -#+cindex: deadlines
>> -#+cindex: scheduling
>
> Is there any particular reason why you removed index entries here and
> further in the diff?

No, there isn't.  I think what happened here is that I noticed section
8.1 in org-guide and org-manual were almost (but not quite) the same. I
assumed (incorrectly?) that they were supposed to be the same, but got
out of sync.  So I made my patch to org-guide and then replaced section
8.1 in org-manual with the one from org-guide.  I think these "cindex"
statements got dropped because of that.  If they are important in
org-manual, but not org-guide, then please put them back.

>>    A timestamp may contain a /repeater interval/, indicating that it
>>    applies not only on the given date, but again and again after
>> -  a certain interval of N hours (h), days (d), weeks (w), months (m),
>> -  or years (y).  The following shows up in the agenda every Wednesday:
>> +  a certain interval of N days (d), weeks (w), months (m), or years
>> +  (y).  The following shows up in the agenda every Wednesday:
>
> Why did you remove hours?

Oh!  Another difference between org-guide and org-manual that came over
in trying to resync the two.

>>    For more complex date specifications, Org mode supports using the
>> -  special expression diary entries implemented in the
>> -  [[info:emacs#Special Diary Entries][Emacs Calendar package]][fn:20].
>> -  For example, with optional time:
>> +  special expression diary entries implemented in the Emacs Calendar
>> +  package.  For example, with optional time:
>
> Why did you remove the links and the footnote?

Again, another diff between org-guide and org-manual, :-\

I'm relooking at this patch.  Testing finds that these work in the
timegrid agenda as expected:

* <2023-02-03 Thu 10:00-11:00>--<2023-02-04 Fri 10:00-11:00>
** Can't mark one done -- you have to mark them all done
*** Kind of expected for this form
* <2023-02-03 Thu 10:00-11:00 +1d>
** Can you limit the number of repeats? If so, how?
** Marking it DONE removes current one from agenda
*** reasonable

I have to rethink section 8.1.  With the above in mind, 8.1 is not quite
right, but it's more subtle than I thought.  Not sure how in the weeds
it should get for a user's manual. 

-- 
David Masterson



reply via email to

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