* Sorting a column of inactive dates
@ 2009-02-03 0:06 Hsiu-Khuern Tang
2009-02-06 15:53 ` Carsten Dominik
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Hsiu-Khuern Tang @ 2009-02-03 0:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Hi all,
I have a table where one column consists of inactive dates, such as this:
| Date | OK? |
|------------------+-----|
| [2009-01-30 Fri] | x |
| [2009-01-27 Tue] | x |
| [2009-01-28 Wed] | x |
I can't sort the table by that column. If I change the dates to active, then
sorting (by time) works fine. Is this behavior intentional?
--
Best,
Hsiu-Khuern.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Sorting a column of inactive dates
2009-02-03 0:06 Sorting a column of inactive dates Hsiu-Khuern Tang
@ 2009-02-06 15:53 ` Carsten Dominik
2009-02-06 18:37 ` Hsiu-Khuern Tang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Carsten Dominik @ 2009-02-06 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hsiu-Khuern Tang; +Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
On Feb 3, 2009, at 1:06 AM, Hsiu-Khuern Tang wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a table where one column consists of inactive dates, such as
> this:
>
> | Date | OK? |
> |------------------+-----|
> | [2009-01-30 Fri] | x |
> | [2009-01-27 Tue] | x |
> | [2009-01-28 Wed] | x |
>
> I can't sort the table by that column. If I change the dates to
> active, then
> sorting (by time) works fine. Is this behavior intentional?
Yes, intentional, because the same routine also does sorting of
entries and should prefer active time stamps. However, I realize that
we can still look for an inactive time stamp when no active one can be
found. I just pushed this change.
- Carsten
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Sorting a column of inactive dates
2009-02-06 15:53 ` Carsten Dominik
@ 2009-02-06 18:37 ` Hsiu-Khuern Tang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Hsiu-Khuern Tang @ 2009-02-06 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
* On Fri 03:53PM +0000, 06 Feb 2009, Carsten Dominik (dominik@science.uva.nl) wrote:
>
> On Feb 3, 2009, at 1:06 AM, Hsiu-Khuern Tang wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have a table where one column consists of inactive dates, such as
> > this:
> >
> > | Date | OK? |
> > |------------------+-----|
> > | [2009-01-30 Fri] | x |
> > | [2009-01-27 Tue] | x |
> > | [2009-01-28 Wed] | x |
> >
> > I can't sort the table by that column. If I change the dates to
> > active, then
> > sorting (by time) works fine. Is this behavior intentional?
>
>
> Yes, intentional, because the same routine also does sorting of
> entries and should prefer active time stamps. However, I realize that
> we can still look for an inactive time stamp when no active one can be
> found. I just pushed this change.
Thank you for this change; it works great!
--
Best,
Hsiu-Khuern.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-02-06 18:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-02-03 0:06 Sorting a column of inactive dates Hsiu-Khuern Tang
2009-02-06 15:53 ` Carsten Dominik
2009-02-06 18:37 ` Hsiu-Khuern Tang
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).