Re: please read: bug when marking tasks done

[Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com>]

there is a related bug.

when there are multiple repeaters, closing a task with -1 can only
zero the first.

probably it should zero all mutable repeaters.

***** MOOT hi
CLOSED: [2019-01-12 Sat 13:54]
<2019-01-13 Sun .+0d>
<2019-01-13 Sun .+1d>
=<2019-01-12 Sat .+1d>=
~<2019-01-12 Sat .+1d>~
hi


On 1/12/19, Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com> wrote:
> manual> Text in the code and
> verbatim string is not processed for Org mode specific syntax, it is
> exported verbatim.
>
> i assumed that meant /during export/.  it is in the markup section.
>
> thus, someplace in manual, perhaps say that verbatim and code have
> more effects than just export.
>
>
> On 1/12/19, cesar mena <cesar.mena@gmail.com> wrote:
>> hello,
>>
>> Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>>
>>>>> Now, we might make its contents by marking them as verbatim, for
>>>>> example. E.g.,
>>>>>
>>>>>   - Rescheduled from =[2019-02-05 Tue .1m]= on [2018-09-29 Sat 18:50]
>>>>
>>>> that's not a bad idea, but what about the other way round?
>>>>
>>>> that is, inactive timestamps with repeaters do not update unless they
>>>> are
>>>> marked as you suggest.  this way current workflows are not affected and
>>>> inactive timestamps can be made to update if requested.
>>>
>>> The other way around is not possible because =...= means "verbatim".
>>> This would be contradictory.
>>
>> i see. i didn't know =...= meant verbatim. so in light of this new
>> knowledge :) your solution makes a lot of sense. i was originally
>> opposed to it because it means current documents will have to change to
>> add =...= but in the end it seems the simplest.
>>
>>> The main question is: what to do with an "inactive time stamp with
>>> repeater".
>>>
>>> The original report, that lead to the incriminated commit, emphasized
>>> the "repeater" part, arguing a repeater should induce the time stamp is
>>> meant to be repeated, notwithstanding its nature.
>>>
>>> You are emphasizing the "inactive" part of it, arguing that anything
>>> inactive should not change dynamically.
>>>
>>> Both arguments can be heard. I agree yours is more conservative. Yet,
>>> I'd like to hear about a solution than can satisfy both. I'm Cc'ing the
>>> OP.
>>
>> i'm ok going with the verbatim syntax - rescheduled lines will now look
>> like (w/o the double quotes?):
>>
>>   - Rescheduled from =[2019-02-05 Tue .1m]= on [2018-09-29 Sat 18:50]
>>
>>> I'm trying to keep Org as simple as possible, but different users have
>>> different use cases, and, in some annoying situations like this one,
>>> these use cases conflict.
>>
>> we are ever grateful.
>>
>> best,
>> -cm
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> The Kafka Pandemic: <http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com>
>
> The disease DOES progress. MANY people have died from it. And ANYBODY
> can get it at any time.
>
> "You’ve really gotta quit this and get moving, because this is murder
> by neglect." ---
> <http://www.meaction.net/2017/02/03/pwme-people-with-me-are-being-murdered-by-neglect>.
>


-- 
The Kafka Pandemic: <http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com>

The disease DOES progress. MANY people have died from it. And ANYBODY
can get it at any time.

"You’ve really gotta quit this and get moving, because this is murder
by neglect." ---
<http://www.meaction.net/2017/02/03/pwme-people-with-me-are-being-murdered-by-neglect>.