Samuel Wales <samolog...@gmail.com> writes: > On 1/14/23, Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> wrote: >> However, I do not see why we cannot implement them within the current >> Org timestamp syntax: > > my concern would be personal code and 3rd-party packages, which might > have their own peculiar parsing.
I proposed a single slight change in timestamp syntax: <2023-01-14 Sat +1w/5x> However, it is almost the same with what we have for habits: <2023-01-14 Sat +1w/2w> I do not see how things are going to break even if third-party packages use some home-grown parsers. > if otoh org provides really good api that can even do that, then i > suppose you could tell those devs to use that api. `org-get-repeat', `org-get-wdays', and `org-element-timestamp-parser'. > also my personal preference is for less new org syntax. which is one > reason why i like cl-style sexp kw for future features and > subfeatures. syntax can be hard to look up in the org manual, hard to > remember, etc. but that's mho. My proposal is as little new syntax as I was able to come up with. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>. Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>, or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
