> Multi-line sexps in time stamps work would just be nice to have. Would > it be hard to achieve? I mean, since multi-line %%(...) entries already > work...
The problem is that org-mode assumes that planning line must be a single line and a lot of internal logic hard-code this assumption. For example, below is a fragment of org-get-property-block: ;; Move point to its position according to its positional rules. (cond ((org-before-first-heading-p) (while (and (org-at-comment-p) (bolp)) (forward-line))) (t (forward-line) (when (looking-at-p org-planning-line-re) (forward-line)))) The last line clearly assumes that planning line is always a single line. The same assumption is made in many other places in org-mode internals. Though one may write a patch to make multi-line sexps work in org-mode, there is also a problem with external tools working with org. I do not think there is support of multi-line planning everywhere. > I think this is inconvenient. Ok, only a bit. But it would be nicer if > I could specify my dates in only one file. Jumping around in my org > file + my emacs init file is what I used to do. You can always use file-local definition at the beginning or end of your org file. Below is an example of local definition at the end of an org file. # Local Variables: # eval: (defun your-function () (sexp)) Best, Ihor Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerde...@web.de> writes: > Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > When dealing with complicated date rules it can likely happen that a >> > diary sexp doesn't fit into one line. >> >> Diary sexp can be a user-defined function. If your sexp needs to span >> multiple lines, it is probably worth defining a function and simply >> using <%%(your-function)> as a timestamp. > > I think this is inconvenient. Ok, only a bit. But it would be nicer if > I could specify my dates in only one file. Jumping around in my org > file + my emacs init file is what I used to do. > > Multi-line sexps in time stamps work would just be nice to have. Would > it be hard to achieve? I mean, since multi-line %%(...) entries already > work... > > > Thanks, > > Michael.