Thanks. I understand now.
I think to generate a patch in this case it's too much hustle, for a minor
benefit.
--
Adam
On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 09:13, Bastien wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> Adam Faryna writes:
>
> > Ok, maybe I misunderstood the purpose of this function. I wanted to
> > use it to check
Hi Adam,
Adam Faryna writes:
> Ok, maybe I misunderstood the purpose of this function. I wanted to
> use it to check if the timestamp is active or inactive and I tried to
> get it by using (org-at-timestamp-p 'inactive) while pointing at the
> timestamp. But actually when I call it on any
Ok, maybe I misunderstood the purpose of this function. I wanted to use it
to check if the timestamp is active or inactive and I tried to get it by
using (org-at-timestamp-p 'inactive) while pointing at the timestamp. But
actually when I call it on any timestamp like [2020-09-04 Fri], <2020-09-04
Hi Adam,
thanks, but I still need to understand the exact change you suggest
and what general fix/improvement it will provide. Probably a patch
will be easier to understand for this.
Thanks,
--
Bastien
I think the problem is general. If you work with any timestamp that is
agenda like, you can't check using this function if it's active or
inactive. The one solution would be to remove parameter "agenda" and
consider every timestamp as a agenda like (the "timestamp" in "
org-at-timestamp-p" suggest
Hi Adam,
Adam Faryna writes:
> The problem is I needed to check if the timestamp is agenda like and
> inactive or ignore the context at the same time. But
> org-at-timestamp-p takes only one parameter, and I needed to give it
> multiple parameters, which is not possible in the current version.
Hi,
recently I was doing some customization and I needed to check if timestamp
at a point is active or inactive. That timestamp also contains an agenda
like information about reoccurring.
So I tried to use org-at-timestamp-p function for this purpose.
The problem is I needed to check if the
