Re: New version of todo-mode.el (announcement + user guide)

[Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@gmx.net>]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 21:06:57 -0400 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

>> didn't consider the use-case you mention.  I'll try to write a command
>> that converts from the new to the old format, but this may not be so
>
> Don't bother.  A conversion forward is important, but a conversion
> backward much less so.  Instead it's important to be able to use the
> old-style format in newer Emacsen.
>
>>> That sounds like the better solution.  Even better if the old and the
>>> new code can be both in use at the same time (e.g. if you have
>>> converted some of your todo files but not all).
>> I want to be sure what you're saying here: are you saying there's
>> something better than making the old version obsolete?  Or are you
>> saying it is ok to make it obsolete?
>
> Making it obsolete is fine.
>
>> (Your parenthetical example is a bit confusing, because the old
>> version only supports using one todo file at a time.  I guess you
>> could have several todos files, but to switch between them you'd have
>> to unload todo-mode.el, change the value of todo-file-do and reload
>> the package.  The fact that you can simultaneously use multiple todo
>> files is another big advantage of the new version -- and probably also
>> the main stumbling block in converting from the new to the
>> old format.)
>
> I was thinking of the case where the user wants to transition
> progressively, so she keeps her old-style todo file but also starts to
> use a new-style todo file.
> But maybe it's not important to support this use case.
>
>>> It sounds borderline.
>> That's a bit intimidating.  Maybe the code Wolfgang Jenkner posted in
>> this thread could be used instead -- even better if it were just added
>> to Emacs.  Juri Linkov also posted one a little while ago, which was
>> actually essentially the same as the Common Lisp recursive definition.
>> Is this really subject to copyright?
>
> No, it sounds fine, thank you.  They're all sufficiently trivial.

Ok, thanks for the clarifications.  As soon as the diary-lib issue is
resolved, I'll move on to installing the new version.

Steve Berman