At Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:51:59 -0500, Bernt Hansen wrote: > You can add BOTH time-up and effort-up to the sorting strategy for the > agenda and time will prevail - for items with a time, and effort will be > the next sorting criteria.
The point I missed is that time-up will only be applied to those items have a date-stamp for the day in question, so that effort-up will not be outranked by time-up for the rest of the entries. > Have you tried this? > > ;; Sorting order for tasks on the agenda > (setq org-agenda-sorting-strategy > (quote ((agenda time-up effort-up)))) I have now: initially I thought that the time-up would leave nothing for effort-up to work on. > When I was first experimented with the sorting strategy I used the > customize interface to set it for the current session only and looked at > the result of my agenda with the new setting. Yes, setting configurations for current session only is a huge boon for trials, but the clunky customize interface for manipulating the values is a bit annoying compared to Emacs' built in sexpr manipulation. Swapping the order of two sorting strategy entries, for example, is very painful compared to C-M-t. Is there some convenient way of, say, swapping entries in the customize interface? > (setq org-agenda-sorting-strategy > (quote ((agenda habit-down time-up user-defined-up priority-down > effort-up category-keep) > (todo category-up priority-down effort-up) > (tags category-up priority-down effort-up) > (search category-up)))) > > so for the agenda daily view habits are at the bottom, and timed items > are at the top, then my user-defined sorting function sorts what is left > for the middle section of the list in the following order: It's still not entirely clear to me how these options work. Take habit-down, at the beginning. What do the '-down' and '-up' mean? I infer that they might have one of two meanings: in 'habit-down' the '-down' seems to mean that habits should be placed at the bottom, while in 'effort-down' I infer that it means that items with an effort property should be sorted by decreasing effort, relative to eachother. There's clearly some confusion in my mind about how these work. > - items with no schedule/deadline and timestamped for today > - deadlines for today > - late deadlines > - scheduled items for today > - late scheduled items > - and pending deadlines last Incidentally, why did you need to create a macro which captures num-a, num-b result, for your implementation of bh/agenda-sort? AFAICT, functions which return +1,-1 or nil would have been adeqate here. What have I missed?
