On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 10:14:27AM +0100, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Toby Cubitt <ts...@cantab.net> writes: > > > Personally, I find the time duration "123:15" much harder to parse > > mentally than "5d 3:15". > > > > The attached patch adds a new customization option > > `org-time-clocksum-days-format'. When non-nil, this is used instead of > > `org-time-clocksum-format' for clocksum durations longer than 1 day. It > > gets passed three values: # days, # hours, # mins. (Note that you don't > > have to use all three in the format if, say, you don't feel the need to > > display the minutes for such long durations.) > > > > In the patch, I've set the default value for this new customization > > option to a non-nil value. If you prefer to keep the current behaviour as > > the default, just make the default value nil. > > > > Toby > > > > > > PS: I guess the logical extrapolation of this is to add even more > > `org-time-clocksum-[months|years|decades]-format' options. (Or, probably > > better, abandon printf formats for long durations and just add an > > `org-time-clocksum-format-function' option, leaving it up users to define > > a function to format the time as they wish.) > > > > I haven't done this in the patch, because I think "64d 3:15" is no harder > > to parse than "2m 4d 3:15" (plus there's the thorny issue of how many > > days should be in a month). And by the time you get to "535d 3:15" > > vs. "2y 5d 3:15", the duration is so long that you probably don't care > > much about the exact value, except that it's a very long-running task > > indeed! > > Thanks for your patch. > > I like the idea, but it would be better to avoid introducing yet another > defcustom for this. There is already: > > - org-time-clocksum-format > - org-time-clocksum-use-fractional > - org-time-clocksum-fractional-format > > As you suggest, I think a better plan is to replace all of them with > a single `org-time-clocksum-display-function'. Its expected value would > be a function accepting 2 arguments: hours and minutes, as numbers and > it should return a string. > > We can also provide default functions for current behaviour (i.e. > fractional time and Hs:MM) and for the one you suggest. > > It's more work, but it simplifies the whole thing in the end. > > What do you think? Do you want to give it a try?
Sounds like a good plan, and it won't be very difficult to implement. I'm happy to have a go, but I'm somewhat short on spare time just at the moment, so it might take me a few weeks to get around to it. Best, Toby -- Dr T. S. Cubitt Mathematics and Quantum Information group Department of Mathematics Complutense University Madrid, Spain email: ts...@cantab.net web: www.dr-qubit.org