Le Thu, 10 May 2012 08:38:42 +0200, Bastien a écrit :
> ** Lecture
><2012-05-08 mar.>
>
> ** Lecture
><2012-05-15 mar.>
>
> ** Lecture
><2012-05-22 mar.>
Sure that makes sense, but I forgot to say one thing : as the lectures
have not yet been given, they do not have a title; thus my
Hi Nicolas,
Nicolas Richard writes:
> PMJI, but I often used to construct headlines such as
>
> * Some course (or any other kind of recurring meeting)
> ** <2012-05-08 mar.>
> ** <2012-05-15 mar.>
> ** <2012-05-22 mar.>
>
> and then filling the level two headlines as I attend the lectures. This
Le Tue, 08 May 2012 16:10:02 +0200, Bastien a écrit :
> Nick Dokos writes:
>
>> Oh, I agree - the removal is certainly desirable. I meant whether the
>> non-removal of not-today's date is intentional :-)
>
> Thinking about this again, I don't see any reason why we should keep any
> timestamp in
Hi Nick,
Nick Dokos writes:
> Oh, I agree - the removal is certainly desirable. I meant whether the
> non-removal of not-today's date is intentional :-)
Thinking about this again, I don't see any reason why we should keep any
timestamp in the headline. I pushed a fix for this.
Thanks!
--
B
Just so people know that this is a possibility:
I find it useful to put inactive timestamps in headlines. This makes
it simple to find entries in a sorted chronological list, and gather
information about them, without any unfolding or even (in some cases)
any ellipses.
I think the key thing is t
Bastien wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> Nick Dokos writes:
>
> > so it becomes "<2012-04-17.*?>". Hence it removes the date in the third
> > example above, but not in the other two.
> >
> > The question is whether this is intended or not
>
> I think this is intended. If timestamps were not removed fro
Bastien altern.org> writes:
> I think this is intended. If timestamps were not removed from today's
> date, agenda listing items scheduled/timestamped for today would be less
> readable.
If the year in the timestamp of +1y repeating items is the current year, it *is*
removed from the agenda.
Hi Nick,
Nick Dokos writes:
> so it becomes "<2012-04-17.*?>". Hence it removes the date in the third
> example above, but not in the other two.
>
> The question is whether this is intended or not
I think this is intended. If timestamps were not removed from today's
date, agenda listing items
Brian van den Broek wrote:
> On 17 April 2012 15:11, SW wrote:
> > SW gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> > > 2) I just added a bunch of holidays / days of observation to my system.
> >> Your use case is better accomplished via org-anniversary:
> >> > >
> >> > > (org-anniversary 2011 01 01) New Year's
On 17 April 2012 15:11, SW wrote:
> SW gmail.com> writes:
>
>> > > 2) I just added a bunch of holidays / days of observation to my system.
>> Your use case is better accomplished via org-anniversary:
>> > >
>> > > (org-anniversary 2011 01 01) New Year's Day
>> > Emailing before first coffee is a
SW gmail.com> writes:
> > > 2) I just added a bunch of holidays / days of observation to my system.
> Your use case is better accomplished via org-anniversary:
> > >
> > > (org-anniversary 2011 01 01) New Year's Day
> > Emailing before first coffee is a bad idea. I left out some syntax. See
> htt
SW wrote:
> Nick Dokos hp.com> writes:
>
> > Indeed - I can reproduce that. It happens in org-agenda-get-timestamps,
> > in the call to org-agenda-format-item: this function takes a regexp
> > argument, remove-re, and removes any matches from the string it
> > produces. The regexp is constructe
Brian van den Broek gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>
> On 17 Apr 2012 09:39, "Brian van den Broek"
gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2) I just added a bunch of holidays / days of observation to my system. Your
use case is better accomplished via org-anniversary:
> >
> > (org-anniversary 2011 01 01) New Year's Da
Nick Dokos hp.com> writes:
> Indeed - I can reproduce that. It happens in org-agenda-get-timestamps,
> in the call to org-agenda-format-item: this function takes a regexp
> argument, remove-re, and removes any matches from the string it
> produces. The regexp is constructed from the *current* dat
SW wrote:
> SW gmail.com> writes:
>
> > This
> >
> > *** New Year's Day
> > <2011-01-01 +1y>
> >
> > does *not* include the timestamp in the agenda, yes.
> >
> > However, timestamps are *not* included in the agenda from other entries
> > which
> > *do* have timestamps in the headline.
> >
SW gmail.com> writes:
> This
>
> *** New Year's Day
> <2011-01-01 +1y>
>
> does *not* include the timestamp in the agenda, yes.
>
> However, timestamps are *not* included in the agenda from other entries which
> *do* have timestamps in the headline.
>
> I've tested with repeating timestamps,
Brian van den Broek gmail.com> writes:
> 1) I believe org works much more happily if you don't include timestamps in
headlines.
This
*** New Year's Day
<2011-01-01 +1y>
does *not* include the timestamp in the agenda, yes.
However, timestamps are *not* included in the agenda from other entries
On 17 Apr 2012 09:39, "Brian van den Broek"
wrote:
> 2) I just added a bunch of holidays / days of observation to my system.
Your use case is better accomplished via org-anniversary:
>
> (org-anniversary 2011 01 01) New Year's Day
Emailing before first coffee is a bad idea. I left out some synta
On 17 Apr 2012 09:25, "SW" wrote:
>
> SW gmail.com> writes:
>
> > *** <2011-01-01 +1y> New Year's Day :holiday:
> >
> > and the following appearing on the agenda:
> >
> > File: <2011-01-01 +1y> New Year's Day :holiday:
> >
> > What I'm asking about is the fact that the full
SW gmail.com> writes:
> Apologies -- the above was a copy and paste nightmare between Emacs and
> Firemacs. What I meant was the following in an org file:
>
> *** <2011-01-01 +1y> New Year's Day :holiday:
>
> and the following appearing on the agenda:
>
> File: <2011-01-01 +1y> New Y
SW gmail.com> writes:
>
> I have entries such as the following:
>
> *** <2011-01-01 +1y> New Year's Day :holiday:
>
> which appear on the agenda on the correct day each year, but they appear as:
>
> File: <2011-01-01 +1y> Public Holiday: Freedom Day :holiday:
>
> with the d
Copied a South African diary? :)
SW wrote:
> I have entries such as the following:
>
> *** <2011-01-01 +1y> New Year's Day :holiday:
>
> which appear on the agenda on the correct day each year, but they appear as:
>
> File: <2011-01-01 +1y> Public Holiday: Freedom Day :holiday:
>
> with the date showing. Ot
I have entries such as the following:
*** <2011-01-01 +1y> New Year's Day:holiday:
which appear on the agenda on the correct day each year, but they appear as:
File: <2011-01-01 +1y> Public Holiday: Freedom Day :holiday:
with the date showing. Other deadline/schedule/plain
24 matches
Mail list logo
