Re: Is this proper time format?

[David Masterson]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:

> David Masterson <dsmasterson@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> -To assist project planning, TODO items can be labeled with a date
>>>> -and/or a time.  The specially formatted string carrying the date and
>>>> -time information is called a /timestamp/ in Org mode.
>>>> +To assist project planning, TODO items can be labeled with dates
>>>> +and/or times for purposes described in this chapter.  The specially
>>>> +formatted string carrying the date and time information is called a
>>>> +/timestamp/ in Org mode.
>>>
>>> What is the purpose of this change? The updated sentence is rather
>>> confusing, IMHO.
>>
>> Mostly changing the statement from singular to plural to imply that more
>> than one timestamp can be in a TODO item (SCHEDULED, DEADLINE, multiple
>> plain timestamps) w/o directly mentioning how (leave that for later
>> examples in the chapter).
>
> I am mostly questioning "for purposes described in this chapter".
> All the TODO items can be labelled with multiple dates/times, not just in
> "this chapter".

I see.  I'm trying to say that the rest of this chapter describes how,
where and why you would use dates/times in an Org file.  For example,
the Timestamps subchapter describes what a timestamp looks like and that
it can be used in any header or paragraph in an Org file and how the
timestamp affects the agenda.

>>>> +A timestamp is a specification of a date---possibly with a time or a
>>>> +range of times---in a special format, either =<2003-09-16 Tue>= or
>>>> +=<2003-09-16 Tue 09:39>= or =<2003-09-16 Tue 12:00-12:30>=.  A
>>>> +timestamp can appear anywhere in the headline or body of an Org tree
>>>> +entry.  Its presence causes entries to be shown on specific
>>>> +dates/times in the agenda (see [[*The Weekly/Daily Agenda]]).  We
>>>> +distinguish:
>>>
>>> This is not accurate. Only date is considered by agenda. Not time.
>>> Time can be displayed, but has no effect (by default) on whether an
>>> entry appears in the agenda or not.
>>
>> In testing, I found the following:
>>
>> * TODO summer school
>>   <2023-06-05 Mon 10:30-12:15>--<2023-06-08 Thu 10:30-12:15>
>>
>> ...
>> Is this being done by an add-on package?  I have these, but most of them
>> are not setup:
>
> No. I meant that presence of time has no effect on whether an entry
> appear in agenda or not. Once agenda decides that an entry should
> appear, the time is taken into account when formatting the display.
>
> You modified the manual to "Its presence causes entries to be shown on
> specific dates/times in the agenda". There is no concept of "shown on
> specific time" in agenda views. Just "shown on specific day".

I think I see what you're saying.  I'm fine with dropping "/times".

>>>>  - Timestamp with repeater interval ::
>>>>  
>>>>    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 days (d), weeks (w), months (m), or years
>>>> -  (y).  The following shows up in the agenda every Wednesday:
>>>> +  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 week at the
>>>> +  given day of the week and time:
>>>
>>> I miss the point here. You changed the last sentence to mention time,
>>> but the "following" example does not specify the time (<%%(diary-float t 4 
>>> 2)>).
>>
>> I think you're looking at the patch file, so you're not seeing the line
>> before the 'diary' line which has a time of 22:00-23:00 on it.  I don't
>> use 'diary-float', so did I misinterpret the example?  If so, drop the
>> "and time".  The main purpose was to add in "hours" after N.
>
> "22:00-23:00" has no relation to timestamps.
> Agenda still accounts for it because of
> `org-agenda-search-headline-for-time', but this part of the manual is
> talking about timestamps, not agenda extras. The diary timestamp does
> not set the time.

Ah, then just drop the "and time" change.

-- 
David Masterson