Hello, Samuel Wales <samolog...@gmail.com> writes:
> commented repeater cookies does not have any of the above drawbacks. > it might require a 3rd party tool to update its re if that tool uses > repeaters. this is not unprecedented. the inactive repeater feature > might already require a 3rd party tool to update its re. > > so upon reflection i think i'd go for commentable repeater cookies. > it has a bonus too: whenever you turn off a repeater, it can be > annoying that it zeroes out the interval. commenting would fix that. > > perhaps there is a better, unmentioned solution? I think commented repeaters add unnecessary overhead to the already loaded timestamp syntax. This is, IMO, not a common enough need to warrant even a minor syntax change. However, we still need to move forward. So, I suggest to revert the change about inactive timestamps. Inactive timestamps cannot be repeated. This is less disruptive than the current situation. However, I also suggest to add a new hook, run after repeating timestamps. With this hook, and a proper, user-specific, markup, it should be possible to pick inactive timestamps in the section and "repeat" them manually, i.e., on a case-by-case basis. WDYT? Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
