Seth Falcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> Should we really be removing the dots from the date stamp? It seems
>> more consistent with expected Planner behavior to leave them in the
>> usual Planner date format, because then they will be automatically
>> turned into links.
>
> I didn't want a link because I wanted to keep the time stamp as
> inobtrusive as possible and because I couldn't see how such a link
> would be useful.
>
The link could be useful because it would give the user an easy way to jump
back to the context in which the task was created. But this could also just be
done by creating a link by hand in the task description when needed, so I'm not
sure. Anybody else have thoughts about what the default should be?
>> I think I would prefer it this way, so maybe we could at least have
>> an option allowing this. I think what might make the most sense is
>> to have a customizable format string for the timestamp, and to use
>> the typical emacs date/time functions to get the time for the stamp,
>> rather than planner-today. This would make it a little harder to see
>> if the task already has a timestamp, but we could just match on the
>> {{key:.*}} instead.
>
> Both suggestions seem very reasonable.
>
I kind of like the idea of having a format string for the timestamp, but it
seems like doing this will make any kind of sorting require more code. So I'm
thinking that just having the option for whether to make the timestamp links
or not would be enough for now.
>> The way it is now, the timestamp is affected by planner-timewarp,
>> and I'm not sure how I feel about that.
>
> I've not used planner-timewarp so I don't understand. I used
> planner-today because it was there.
>
planner-timewarp makes planner think that it's a different day than it is.
I'm still not sure if the timestamp function should be under the influence of
the timewarp or not.
I guess it probably should, in which case the code is fine. If it's not
influenced by the timewarp, then we'll end up with tasks created on yesterday's
day page with a timestamp of today, and that's just not right.
>> With the timestamping code that I'd written previously, I had the
>> timestamp at the beginning of the task description, and I liked this
>> because then it would affect the sorting order. It provided an easy
>> way to make sure that things that had been lingering for a while
>> stayed at the top. Any thoughts about that possibility?
>>
>
> Could be another option? Another idea is to create a task sorting
> function that uses the time stamps if available.
>
Yes, I think that's a better idea. A separate sorting function that sorts by
timestamp.
--
-John Sullivan
-http://www.wjsullivan.net
-GPG Key: AE8600B6
_______________________________________________
Planner-el-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/planner-el-discuss
