Re: [O] Multiple :LOGBOOK: blocks "allowed" without unwanted side effects?

2012-03-20 Thread Achim Gratz
Rainer Stengele writes: > I wonder if any of the clocking table functions is looking at the > drawer names or begin end markers or is simply collecting all CLOCK > entries, which would say that the "management/hiding" of the CLOCK > entries by drawer names is no problem. Nicolas would be a more a

Re: [O] Multiple :LOGBOOK: blocks "allowed" without unwanted side effects?

2012-03-20 Thread Rainer Stengele
Am 20.03.2012 10:52, schrieb Achim Gratz: > Rainer Stengele online.de> writes: >> I want to be sure that multiple :LOBGOOK: blocks in sequence are making no > trouble. > > I don't know about having multiple LOGBOOK drawers, that feels dirty... What > I > do is having a CLOSED drawer defined, pu

Re: [O] Multiple :LOGBOOK: blocks "allowed" without unwanted side effects?

2012-03-20 Thread Achim Gratz
Rainer Stengele online.de> writes: > I want to be sure that multiple :LOBGOOK: blocks in sequence are making no trouble. I don't know about having multiple LOGBOOK drawers, that feels dirty... What I do is having a CLOSED drawer defined, putting it directly behind the LOGBOOK drawer and then jus

[O] Multiple :LOGBOOK: blocks "allowed" without unwanted side effects?

2012-03-20 Thread Rainer Stengele
Hi all, I want to be sure that multiple :LOBGOOK: blocks in sequence are making no trouble. As an example I have this: * NEXT A task :LOGBOOK: CLOCK: [2012-03-19 Mo 16:45]--[2012-03-19 Mo 17:00] => 0:15 CLOCK: [2012-03-12 Mo 14:15]--[2012-03-12 Mo 14:30] => 0:15 C