Hello, Carlos Pita <carlosjosep...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi all, > > there is a problem in this kind of logic: > > (cond ((not ta) +1) > ((not tb) -1) > ((string-lessp ta tb) -1) > ((string-lessp tb ta) +1)))) > > in that when both ta and tb are nil then they are arbitrarily sorted. > Since the agenda sorting strategy is lexicographic this logic > virtually invalidates any strategy that puts tag or alpha first, v.g. > '(tag-up priority-down). > > I've attached a patch returning nil when both ta and tb are nil so as > to fallback to the next sorting criterion without favoring lhs nor > rhs. Applied. Thank you. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
