Re: Syntax for <%%(diary-float )>

[Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>]

Renato Pontefice <renato.pontefice@gmail.com> writes:

> Can someone tell me the exact syntax if this statement?

So, if you have more specific questions about diary sexps, please ask.
I can't tell that much about the syntax for the usage in org-mode.  If
you have found out your typical way of use patterns, it is a good idea
to add appropriate entries in `org-capture-templates' for them (prevent
mistakes) and use org-capture to add such entries.  You can call your
own defuns in these templates if stuff (e.g. input reading) gets more
complicated.

When you want to use diary sexps as timestamps (e.g. following SCHEDULED
or DEADLINE keywords), AFAIR they are not allowed to be multiline.  That
will just break them.  If you need complex diary sexps there it's better
to define a named function and use that (in one line, then).

For org agenda generation as described in

  (info "(org) Weekly/daily agenda")

you don't need timestamps - you can write the diary sexp in %%(...) form
just after the property list (if there is one) of the entry, and that
%%(...) syntax _is_ allowed to be multiline.  Another important
difference is that in this case the string that appears in the agenda is
the return value of the diary sexp, not the headline of the current
item (as for time stamps).

And then let me add what I always say: many people have a wrong
impression how diary sexps work: these can be _any_ Elisp expression,
anything is allowed.  There is no limitation to use only built-in diary
sexps, you can freely combine them, define your own ones, etc.  The
(only) rule is: A diary sexp is evaluated with the special variable
`date` bound to the considered date, and it is considered to apply for
that day when and only when the return value is non-nil.  That's all.
The built-in diary sexps just implement that - it's a good idea to look
at the code to get a feeling for how that works internally.

Ok, that's all I could think of at the moment - any questions in
particular?

Michael.