Samuel Wales writes:
> but i just wanted to bring up the issue of 1] the possibility of
> drawing a line in the sand at some point wrt creeping syntax [even if
> not in tses for repeaters], [in principle in tses if tz complexity
> turns out to demand more user specification etc.], and 2] 3rd
to be clear, i won't object to that syntax, as i think it is as
intuitive as anything else in tses already, but do have the concerns i
raised in general.
On 1/15/23, Samuel Wales wrote:
> On 1/15/23, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
>> My proposal is as little new syntax as I was able to come up with.
>
On 1/15/23, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
> My proposal is as little new syntax as I was able to come up with.
i kind of like it actually. :]
but i just wanted to bring up the issue of 1] the possibility of
drawing a line in the sand at some point wrt creeping syntax [even if
not in tses for
Samuel Wales writes:
> On 1/14/23, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
>> However, I do not see why we cannot implement them within the current
>> Org timestamp syntax:
>
> my concern would be personal code and 3rd-party packages, which might
> have their own peculiar parsing.
I proposed a single slight
On 1/14/23, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
> However, I do not see why we cannot implement them within the current
> Org timestamp syntax:
my concern would be personal code and 3rd-party packages, which might
have their own peculiar parsing.
that parsing might even be of non-org files with org syntax
