Re: problem with org-highest-priority
joa...@verona.se writes: > Kyle Meyer writes: > >> The change in behavior you describe came with 4f98694bf (Allow numeric >> values for priorities, 2020-01-30). Based on quickly skimming that >> commit, I think the issue boils down to intentionally not supporting a >> mix of numbers and letters. I'm out of time tonight to look at it too >> closely, but I think support for your use case could be restored with >> something like the lightly tested patch below. > > Thanks, I tested your patch, and it helps a little bit. > > - m-x org-priority works, I can set any priority from 0 to Z > - org-priority-down and org-priority-down doesn't work as expected, as > they worked previously. I dont step through all the priority cookies, > instead I quickly wind up in prio 0, then I'm stuck there, for lack of > better description. Thanks for testing it out. I haven't really reloaded the issue into my head yet, but perhaps there's just a bit more to tweak then. > I'm not sure how to proceed. It seems I'm the only org-user affected by > this change? Hard to say, though I'd bet not (especially if we consider users that aren't on v9.4 yet). As for proceeding, with your feedback, I'll plan to take another look, but it won't be right away, so anyone is welcome to beat me to an updated patch. Even if your formerly working approach wasn't actually envisioned (*), I think it'd make sense to bring back support (along with tests) if it doesn't add much complication. (*) Again, I haven't refreshed on this issue, and I'm a very boring user of A, B, and C priorities. > Should I maintain a local patch to get the behaviour I > want? What is the recomended way to do that? I usually run > org-plus-contrib from elpa. I'm perhaps not the best person to answer this as a non-ELPA user, though I'd imagine your two main options are 1) defining org-priority in your local config to override the builtin version, either with a pure redefinition or with advice-add's :override. 2) cloning the Org repo and keeping a branch with the patch on top of the maint branch For maintaining a local variant over a longer period, the latter is the better way to go because you'll be alerted when the patched version conflicts. But let's see...
Re: problem with org-highest-priority
Kyle Meyer writes: > joa...@verona.se writes: > >> This used to work: >> (defun jv-org-priorities () >> (setq org-highest-priority ?0 ;; 64 @ 48 0, bugs start happening if you >> have higher prios tnan 0, like '!' >> org-lowest-priority ?E ;; E >> org-default-priority ?0 ;; 0 >> org-priority-regexp ".*?\\(\\[#\\([;:<=>?@A-Z0-9]\\)\\] ?\\)" >> )) >> >> I could then have priority cookies from [#0] to [#E]. >> >> With the current org I get [#48] instead of [#0]. >> >> Is there any way to restore the previous behaviour? > > The change in behavior you describe came with 4f98694bf (Allow numeric > values for priorities, 2020-01-30). Based on quickly skimming that > commit, I think the issue boils down to intentionally not supporting a > mix of numbers and letters. I'm out of time tonight to look at it too > closely, but I think support for your use case could be restored with > something like the lightly tested patch below. Thanks, I tested your patch, and it helps a little bit. - m-x org-priority works, I can set any priority from 0 to Z - org-priority-down and org-priority-down doesn't work as expected, as they worked previously. I dont step through all the priority cookies, instead I quickly wind up in prio 0, then I'm stuck there, for lack of better description. - sorting of priorities still work with or withouth the patch, that is prio 0 is highest prio, prio Z is lowest prio. I would like to mention that in my case the characters between letters and numbers are also priority cookies, @ is a cookie as well as 0 and z. Limiting to just letters and numbers would be fine for me though, I dont use the in-between prios much. Because the sorting still works, I have been able to work around this new behaviour, by writing the cookie by hand. I'm not sure how to proceed. It seems I'm the only org-user affected by this change? Should I maintain a local patch to get the behaviour I want? What is the recomended way to do that? I usually run org-plus-contrib from elpa. > > diff --git a/lisp/org.el b/lisp/org.el > index 425e9391b..8237f39f6 100644 > --- a/lisp/org.el > +++ b/lisp/org.el > @@ -11166,8 +11166,7 @@ (defun org-priority ( action show) > (unless org-priority-enable-commands >(user-error "Priority commands are disabled")) > (setq action (or action 'set)) > -(let ((nump (< org-priority-lowest 65)) > - current new news have remove) > +(let (current new news have remove) >(save-excursion > (org-back-to-heading t) > (when (looking-at org-priority-regexp) > @@ -11181,27 +11180,18 @@ (defun org-priority ( action show) > (integerp action)) > (if (not (eq action 'set)) > (setq new action) > - (setq > - new > - (if nump > - (string-to-number > - (read-string (format "Priority %s-%s, SPC to remove: " > -(number-to-string org-priority-highest) > -(number-to-string org-priority-lowest > -(progn (message "Priority %c-%c, SPC to remove: " > - org-priority-highest org-priority-lowest) > - (save-match-data > - (setq new (read-char-exclusive))) > + (setq new > + (progn (message "Priority %c-%c, SPC to remove: " > + org-priority-highest org-priority-lowest) > + (save-match-data > +(setq new (read-char-exclusive)) > (when (and (= (upcase org-priority-highest) org-priority-highest) >(= (upcase org-priority-lowest) org-priority-lowest)) > (setq new (upcase new))) > (cond ((equal new ?\s) (setq remove t)) > ((or (< (upcase new) org-priority-highest) (> (upcase new) > org-priority-lowest)) > - (user-error > - (if nump > - "Priority must be between `%s' and `%s'" > - "Priority must be between `%c' and `%c'") > - org-priority-highest org-priority-lowest > + (user-error "Priority must be between `%c' and `%c'" > + org-priority-highest org-priority-lowest >((eq action 'up) > (setq new (if have > (1- current) ; normal cycling > @@ -11235,7 +11225,7 @@ (defun org-priority ( action show) > (setq remove t))) > ;; Numerical priorities are limited to 64, beyond that number, > ;; assume the priority cookie is a character. > - (setq news (if (> new 64) (format "%c" new) (format "%s" new))) > + (setq news (format "%c" new)) > (if have > (if remove > (replace-match "" t t nil 1) > > -- Joakim Verona joa...@verona.se
Re: problem with org-highest-priority
joa...@verona.se writes: > This used to work: > (defun jv-org-priorities () > (setq org-highest-priority ?0 ;; 64 @ 48 0, bugs start happening if you > have higher prios tnan 0, like '!' > org-lowest-priority ?E ;; E > org-default-priority ?0 ;; 0 > org-priority-regexp ".*?\\(\\[#\\([;:<=>?@A-Z0-9]\\)\\] ?\\)" > )) > > I could then have priority cookies from [#0] to [#E]. > > With the current org I get [#48] instead of [#0]. > > Is there any way to restore the previous behaviour? The change in behavior you describe came with 4f98694bf (Allow numeric values for priorities, 2020-01-30). Based on quickly skimming that commit, I think the issue boils down to intentionally not supporting a mix of numbers and letters. I'm out of time tonight to look at it too closely, but I think support for your use case could be restored with something like the lightly tested patch below. diff --git a/lisp/org.el b/lisp/org.el index 425e9391b..8237f39f6 100644 --- a/lisp/org.el +++ b/lisp/org.el @@ -11166,8 +11166,7 @@ (defun org-priority ( action show) (unless org-priority-enable-commands (user-error "Priority commands are disabled")) (setq action (or action 'set)) -(let ((nump (< org-priority-lowest 65)) - current new news have remove) +(let (current new news have remove) (save-excursion (org-back-to-heading t) (when (looking-at org-priority-regexp) @@ -11181,27 +11180,18 @@ (defun org-priority ( action show) (integerp action)) (if (not (eq action 'set)) (setq new action) - (setq -new -(if nump -(string-to-number - (read-string (format "Priority %s-%s, SPC to remove: " - (number-to-string org-priority-highest) - (number-to-string org-priority-lowest - (progn (message "Priority %c-%c, SPC to remove: " -org-priority-highest org-priority-lowest) - (save-match-data - (setq new (read-char-exclusive))) + (setq new + (progn (message "Priority %c-%c, SPC to remove: " + org-priority-highest org-priority-lowest) +(save-match-data + (setq new (read-char-exclusive)) (when (and (= (upcase org-priority-highest) org-priority-highest) (= (upcase org-priority-lowest) org-priority-lowest)) (setq new (upcase new))) (cond ((equal new ?\s) (setq remove t)) ((or (< (upcase new) org-priority-highest) (> (upcase new) org-priority-lowest)) -(user-error - (if nump - "Priority must be between `%s' and `%s'" - "Priority must be between `%c' and `%c'") - org-priority-highest org-priority-lowest +(user-error "Priority must be between `%c' and `%c'" +org-priority-highest org-priority-lowest ((eq action 'up) (setq new (if have (1- current) ; normal cycling @@ -11235,7 +11225,7 @@ (defun org-priority ( action show) (setq remove t))) ;; Numerical priorities are limited to 64, beyond that number, ;; assume the priority cookie is a character. - (setq news (if (> new 64) (format "%c" new) (format "%s" new))) + (setq news (format "%c" new)) (if have (if remove (replace-match "" t t nil 1)
