Re: [O] [OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?
Hi Eric, Eric Abrahamsen e...@ericabrahamsen.net writes: * [ag] Next Tasks :PROPERTIES: :AGENDA_QUERY: -WAITING-CANCELLED/!NEXT :END: The [ag] cookie tells Org that this is an agenda headline. You hit C-c C-g (or something) within this headline, and Org runs the query and inserts the results as children of the headline. It's just a plain old Org headline, and can be saved or exported as part of the file. The only difference is that you can continue to update it (either manually or with a hook), and that certain Org agenda keybindings are in effect while point is in the headline (actually this part would probably be the most difficult). IMHO this would mix the functionalities you have in an .org file and those you have in an agenda too much. Another problem is that you will end up with duplicated headlines. But if I get the gist of the idea correctly, it sounds like something I've been thinking about: a way to collect headlines from an agenda view, then capture or refile them under a new headline. Not exactly what you are thinking about, but based on the core idea of collecting more easily. -- Bastien
Re: [O] [OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?
On Fri, Sep 14 2012, Bastien wrote: Hi Eric, Eric Abrahamsen e...@ericabrahamsen.net writes: I've daydreamed about this before: what if, instead of agenda views, we took a page from the Tinderbox method and made agendas simple headlines, with some cookie saying I'm an agenda, and a property containing the search string. Instead of having an ephemeral *Org Agenda* buffer, your agenda views are simply another in-file headline, whose children are TODOs/headlines that match the query. Multiple and persistent agendas are suddenly a matter of course. What about this? * [[elisp:(org-agenda nil a)]] But this is still just a link to an *Org Agenda* buffer. What I was describing (and again, I'm not at all convinced this is a good idea) is a headline in a regular org file that looks like this: * [ag] Next Tasks :PROPERTIES: :AGENDA_QUERY: -WAITING-CANCELLED/!NEXT :END: The [ag] cookie tells Org that this is an agenda headline. You hit C-c C-g (or something) within this headline, and Org runs the query and inserts the results as children of the headline. It's just a plain old Org headline, and can be saved or exported as part of the file. The only difference is that you can continue to update it (either manually or with a hook), and that certain Org agenda keybindings are in effect while point is in the headline (actually this part would probably be the most difficult). Anyhoo, just an idea. I see how the Tinderbox feature may be a bit more general. If anybody comes up with a precise feature request based on Tinderbox or any other software, let's try to see if it fits with Org's approach and let's implement it. -- GNU Emacs 24.2.50.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.24.11) of 2012-09-05 on pellet 7.9.1
Re: [O] [OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?
On Sep 17, 2012, at 9:47 PM, Eric Abrahamsen e...@ericabrahamsen.net wrote: On Fri, Sep 14 2012, Bastien wrote: Hi Eric, Eric Abrahamsen e...@ericabrahamsen.net writes: I've daydreamed about this before: what if, instead of agenda views, we took a page from the Tinderbox method and made agendas simple headlines, with some cookie saying I'm an agenda, and a property containing the search string. Instead of having an ephemeral *Org Agenda* buffer, your agenda views are simply another in-file headline, whose children are TODOs/headlines that match the query. Multiple and persistent agendas are suddenly a matter of course. What about this? * [[elisp:(org-agenda nil a)]] But this is still just a link to an *Org Agenda* buffer. What I was describing (and again, I'm not at all convinced this is a good idea) is a headline in a regular org file that looks like this: * [ag] Next Tasks :PROPERTIES: :AGENDA_QUERY: -WAITING-CANCELLED/!NEXT :END: The [ag] cookie tells Org that this is an agenda headline. You hit C-c C-g (or something) within this headline, and Org runs the query and inserts the results as children of the headline. It's just a plain old Org headline, and can be saved or exported as part of the file. The only difference is that you can continue to update it (either manually or with a hook), and that certain Org agenda keybindings are in effect while point is in the headline (actually this part would probably be the most difficult). Anyhoo, just an idea. This sounds somewhat similar to dynamic blocks, maybe something like that can help get you started? http://orgmode.org/manual/Dynamic-blocks.html
Re: [O] [OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?
Hi Eric, Eric Abrahamsen e...@ericabrahamsen.net writes: I've daydreamed about this before: what if, instead of agenda views, we took a page from the Tinderbox method and made agendas simple headlines, with some cookie saying I'm an agenda, and a property containing the search string. Instead of having an ephemeral *Org Agenda* buffer, your agenda views are simply another in-file headline, whose children are TODOs/headlines that match the query. Multiple and persistent agendas are suddenly a matter of course. What about this? * [[elisp:(org-agenda nil a)]] I see how the Tinderbox feature may be a bit more general. If anybody comes up with a precise feature request based on Tinderbox or any other software, let's try to see if it fits with Org's approach and let's implement it. -- Bastien
[O] [OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?
Hi list, I've recently found out about Tinderbox (http://www.eastgate.com/Tinderbox/), a personal information management application/framework for the Mac. It looks very interesting in its visualization capabilities. Does anyone in the list use it, and if so, care to share a bit about the experience? Perhaps it could serve as inspiration for orgmode extensions/integration ideas. Cheers, - Marcelo.
Re: [O] [OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?
On Tue, Sep 04 2012, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote: Hi list, I've recently found out about Tinderbox (http://www.eastgate.com/ Tinderbox/), a personal information management application/framework for the Mac. It looks very interesting in its visualization capabilities. Does anyone in the list use it, and if so, care to share a bit about the experience? Perhaps it could serve as inspiration for orgmode extensions/ integration ideas. Cheers, - Marcelo. I used to use it, when I still used a Mac. Despite the price tag, it was the only piece of software I paid for, *without* later discovering some free open source software that did the same thing better. Tinderbox has some feature overlap with Org, but not a lot. It's much more a generalized note-taking/data collection program -- it can and often is configured as a TODO machine, but you'd have to build in much of the stuff that comes with Org by default. On the other hand, it's much more powerful and flexible when it comes to (re)organizing chunks of plain data. Tinderbox notes are comparable to a single Org headline-plus-text-and-metadata, but they can be arranged and related much more flexibly. Tinderbox doesn't have spreadsheets, tho -- not as far as I remember. Multiple views on the same data is something that Tinderbox also does very well. One interesting distinction is Tinderbox agents. Agents are notes that are mini-programs: they collect other notes according to various search criteria, and the act on them according to various rules. They make Tinderbox powerful, but they also make it confusing: the search and action rules are written in a mini-programming language that is a bit perplexing. But there are interesting implications for Org. Org agenda views are the equivalent of agents, in the *collection* sense: you give it search criteria, and it gives you what is essentially a set of symlinks to other headlines. Action is done by the user, of course, with Agenda commands. I've daydreamed about this before: what if, instead of agenda views, we took a page from the Tinderbox method and made agendas simple headlines, with some cookie saying I'm an agenda, and a property containing the search string. Instead of having an ephemeral *Org Agenda* buffer, your agenda views are simply another in-file headline, whose children are TODOs/headlines that match the query. Multiple and persistent agendas are suddenly a matter of course. It wouldn't work well for date-based Agendas, of course. In fact, it would probably turn out to be a bad idea for reasons I haven't fully thought through, yet, but it was an interesting daydream. E -- GNU Emacs 24.2.50.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.24.11) of 2012-09-04 on pellet 7.9.1
Re: [O] [OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?
Hi Eric, Thank your for sharing your insights! Tinderbox does look interesting, albeit a bit overkill. *without* later discovering some free open source software that did the same thing better. Care to share which? Thanks, Marcelo. On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Eric Abrahamsen e...@ericabrahamsen.netwrote: On Tue, Sep 04 2012, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote: Hi list, I've recently found out about Tinderbox (http://www.eastgate.com/ Tinderbox/), a personal information management application/framework for the Mac. It looks very interesting in its visualization capabilities. Does anyone in the list use it, and if so, care to share a bit about the experience? Perhaps it could serve as inspiration for orgmode extensions/ integration ideas. Cheers, - Marcelo. I used to use it, when I still used a Mac. Despite the price tag, it was the only piece of software I paid for, *without* later discovering some free open source software that did the same thing better. Tinderbox has some feature overlap with Org, but not a lot. It's much more a generalized note-taking/data collection program -- it can and often is configured as a TODO machine, but you'd have to build in much of the stuff that comes with Org by default. On the other hand, it's much more powerful and flexible when it comes to (re)organizing chunks of plain data. Tinderbox notes are comparable to a single Org headline-plus-text-and-metadata, but they can be arranged and related much more flexibly. Tinderbox doesn't have spreadsheets, tho -- not as far as I remember. Multiple views on the same data is something that Tinderbox also does very well. One interesting distinction is Tinderbox agents. Agents are notes that are mini-programs: they collect other notes according to various search criteria, and the act on them according to various rules. They make Tinderbox powerful, but they also make it confusing: the search and action rules are written in a mini-programming language that is a bit perplexing. But there are interesting implications for Org. Org agenda views are the equivalent of agents, in the *collection* sense: you give it search criteria, and it gives you what is essentially a set of symlinks to other headlines. Action is done by the user, of course, with Agenda commands. I've daydreamed about this before: what if, instead of agenda views, we took a page from the Tinderbox method and made agendas simple headlines, with some cookie saying I'm an agenda, and a property containing the search string. Instead of having an ephemeral *Org Agenda* buffer, your agenda views are simply another in-file headline, whose children are TODOs/headlines that match the query. Multiple and persistent agendas are suddenly a matter of course. It wouldn't work well for date-based Agendas, of course. In fact, it would probably turn out to be a bad idea for reasons I haven't fully thought through, yet, but it was an interesting daydream. E -- GNU Emacs 24.2.50.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.24.11) of 2012-09-04 on pellet 7.9.1
Re: [O] [OT] Does anyone use Tinderbox?
On Tue, Sep 04 2012, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote: Hi Eric, Thank your for sharing your insights! Tinderbox does look interesting, albeit a bit overkill. *without* later discovering some free open source software that did the same thing better. Care to share which? Well the most obvious example was TextMate, which I was happy to pay for and enjoyed using, but after hearing it described as emacs-like several times, I googled emacs and ended up… here. Others include Quicken, which I replaced with ledger; iWork, which I replaced with OpenOffice (actually iWork is much nicer, so that doesn't count); and some photo editing program I forget the name of, which I replaced with GIMP. I never said I'd bought a *lot* of software in the past :) Thanks, Marcelo. On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Eric Abrahamsen e...@ericabrahamsen.net wrote: On Tue, Sep 04 2012, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote: Hi list, I've recently found out about Tinderbox (http:// www.eastgate.com/ Tinderbox/), a personal information management application/ framework for the Mac. It looks very interesting in its visualization capabilities. Does anyone in the list use it, and if so, care to share a bit about the experience? Perhaps it could serve as inspiration for orgmode extensions/ integration ideas. Cheers, - Marcelo. I used to use it, when I still used a Mac. Despite the price tag, it was the only piece of software I paid for, *without* later discovering some free open source software that did the same thing better. Tinderbox has some feature overlap with Org, but not a lot. It's much more a generalized note-taking/data collection program -- it can and often is configured as a TODO machine, but you'd have to build in much of the stuff that comes with Org by default. On the other hand, it's much more powerful and flexible when it comes to (re)organizing chunks of plain data. Tinderbox notes are comparable to a single Org headline-plus-text-and-metadata, but they can be arranged and related much more flexibly. Tinderbox doesn't have spreadsheets, tho -- not as far as I remember. Multiple views on the same data is something that Tinderbox also does very well. One interesting distinction is Tinderbox agents. Agents are notes that are mini-programs: they collect other notes according to various search criteria, and the act on them according to various rules. They make Tinderbox powerful, but they also make it confusing: the search and action rules are written in a mini-programming language that is a bit perplexing. But there are interesting implications for Org. Org agenda views are the equivalent of agents, in the *collection* sense: you give it search criteria, and it gives you what is essentially a set of symlinks to other headlines. Action is done by the user, of course, with Agenda commands. I've daydreamed about this before: what if, instead of agenda views, we took a page from the Tinderbox method and made agendas simple headlines, with some cookie saying I'm an agenda, and a property containing the search string. Instead of having an ephemeral *Org Agenda* buffer, your agenda views are simply another in-file headline, whose children are TODOs/headlines that match the query. Multiple and persistent agendas are suddenly a matter of course. It wouldn't work well for date-based Agendas, of course. In fact, it would probably turn out to be a bad idea for reasons I haven't fully thought through, yet, but it was an interesting daydream. E -- GNU Emacs 24.2.50.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.24.11) of 2012-09-04 on pellet 7.9.1 -- GNU Emacs 24.2.50.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.24.11) of 2012-09-04 on pellet 7.9.1
