Re: Numeric Priorities (Was: Re: org priority cycling - removing priorities)

["Dmitri Minaev" <minaev@gmail.com>]

On 9/9/07, Nuutti Kotivuori <naked@iki.fi> wrote:
> And there wouldn't need to be any "highest" or "lowest" values for the
> priorities. Also, I couldn't ever figure out why there needs to be a
> way to specify the default priority explicitly (eg. [#B] vs. lines
> that have none) - so I'd just vote for dropping that - no priority
> listed if the priority is zero.
>
> This way I could always set some task on a higher priority if
> necessary, or a lower one - and I'd only have problems if I need to
> have something in between priorities (if we don't go for float values
> ;)), but that should be easily solvable by a bit of preplanning or
> just editing a few task priorities.

Terve, Nuutti,

I often use priorities, but I would rather call them some other way,
since this name is somewhat misleading. For example, my reading diary
has the following header:

#+PRIORITIES: 1 9 5

and I rate the read books from 1 to 9. I leave the books unrated till
I finish reading. So, to equal missing priority to a default priority
would break this system.

-- 
With best regards,
Dmitri Minaev

Russian history blog: http://minaev.blogspot.com