Nicolas Goaziou <[email protected]> writes:
> The intent of the check is to warn the user that a columns contains
> invalid values. Applying `string-to-number' unconditionally could give
> strange results for example, with {mean,%.2f}.
I do see your point here. I don't use mean, but it is probably
good to warn users about invalid values for such summary types.
If you intend to warn the user, why don't you use display-warning
or something similar?
However, for {+} the default return value of string-to-number
fits pretty well. Aborting with a user-error here seems a bit
over the top for me. Especially, because there is no indication
what entry caused the error.
> There is no point to have a "TODO" or a "XXX" value in a column
> that is summarized with {+;%.2f}.
I believe it makes a lot of sense to have
:PROPERTIES:
:Effort: TODO
:END:
and the old behavior of treating TODO as 0 in such cases seems
perfect to me.
I believe you should also permit users to make {+} summaries,
when they are not yet finished with annotating all items.
Currently also a missing property cases an error.
Hendrik
