On 8.5.2013, at 00:14, Samuel Wales samolog...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bastien,
On 5/7/13, Bastien b...@gnu.org wrote:
IMHO this would be too much, since the let-binding solution is there
already.
I won't object to whatever decision is made, but it made me curious:
is it not there for
Hi Samuel,
Samuel Wales samolog...@gmail.com writes:
However, the COMMENT keyword on a headline stops results from showing.
This is not desired. It is also inconsistent with commented lines.
I strongly prefer for all matches to show up, whether commented or
not. However, in principle
Bastien wrote:
Samuel Wales samolog...@gmail.com writes:
However, the COMMENT keyword on a headline stops results from showing.
This is not desired. It is also inconsistent with commented lines.
I strongly prefer for all matches to show up, whether commented or
not. However, in principle
Sebastien Vauban sva-news-D0wtAvR13HarG/idocf...@public.gmane.org
writes:
Isn't here the problem that the OP makes a difference between agenda
generation and results for a search. I guess he agrees COMMENTed trees
should not participate in agendas, but well in regexp searches.
But Samuel
Bastien wrote:
Sebastien Vauban writes:
Isn't here the problem that the OP makes a difference between agenda
generation and results for a search. I guess he agrees COMMENTed trees
should not participate in agendas, but well in regexp searches.
But Samuel *is* using the agenda, no?
I
On 7 mei 2013, at 14:39, Bastien b...@gnu.org wrote:
Sebastien Vauban sva-news-D0wtAvR13HarG/idocf...@public.gmane.org
writes:
Isn't here the problem that the OP makes a difference between agenda
generation and results for a search. I guess he agrees COMMENTed trees
should not
Hi Sebastien,
On 5/7/13, Sebastien Vauban sva-n...@mygooglest.com wrote:
I understand, maybe wrongly though, that he agrees not seeing COMMENTed
headlines in C-c a a, but not in C-c a s results. He'll tell us...
Yes, that is correct, thank you. (There is also the apparent
inconsistency
Hi Samuel,
Samuel Wales samolog...@gmail.com writes:
Ideally, the variable would allow a list of search types (along the
lines of org-agenda-use-tag-inheritance). I wonder if that would make
sense?
IMHO this would be too much, since the let-binding solution is there
already.
--
Bastien
Hi Bastien,
On 5/7/13, Bastien b...@gnu.org wrote:
IMHO this would be too much, since the let-binding solution is there
already.
I won't object to whatever decision is made, but it made me curious:
is it not there for inheritance?
This raises another question. Is it possible to do a let for
When I search for a {regexp}, using the agenda, with restriction set
to the current file, I get entries that contain matching text in
ordinary lines and entries that contain matching text in commented
lines. This is desired.
However, the COMMENT keyword on a headline stops results from showing.
10 matches
Mail list logo