"Tom Alexander" writes:
>> As for the problem with REST you raised, I am inclined to remove it from
>> syntax doc for the time being - it only creates more confusion,
>> unfortunately.
>
> Makes sense, thanks. Is there anything we do to mark patches as rejected? I
> removed [PATCH] from the
> As for the problem with REST you raised, I am inclined to remove it from
> syntax doc for the time being - it only creates more confusion,
> unfortunately.
Makes sense, thanks. Is there anything we do to mark patches as rejected? I
removed [PATCH] from the subject line.
--
Tom Alexander
pgp:
"Tom Alexander" writes:
> Potentially related, org-mode is accepting this malformed timestamp from[1]:
> ```
> <2016-02-14 Sun ++y>
> ```
>
> The org-mode documentation[2] only includes REST with TIME, defining TIME as
> "H:MMREST". The above does not have any TIME but it accepts the timestamp
Potentially related, org-mode is accepting this malformed timestamp from[1]:
```
<2016-02-14 Sun ++y>
```
The org-mode documentation[2] only includes REST with TIME, defining TIME as
"H:MMREST". The above does not have any TIME but it accepts the timestamp
anyway:
```
(timestamp
:type active
If REST is included in the first TIME on a time-range timestamp then the entire
timestamp becomes a single range-less timestamp. To test I used the following
test document:
```
[1970-01-01 Thu 8:15-13:15foo]
[1970-01-01 Thu 8:15foo-13:15]
```
The first line parses as a timerange from
