From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:17:10 -0400 Message-ID: <11939.1334927830@alphaville> References: <1890.1334665342@alphaville> <877gxawoyd.fsf@altern.org> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45508) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SLDiB-0002TZ-1Q for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:17:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SLDi6-0005fe-Ca for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:17:18 -0400 Received: from g4t0016.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.19]:27156) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SLDi6-0005fR-7k for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:17:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: Message from Bastien of "Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:46:34 +0200." <877gxawoyd.fsf@altern.org> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Bastien Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, SW Bastien wrote: > Hi Nick, > > Nick Dokos writes: > > > so it becomes "<2012-04-17.*?>". Hence it removes the date in the third > > example above, but not in the other two. > > > > The question is whether this is intended or not > > I think this is intended. If timestamps were not removed from today's > date, agenda listing items scheduled/timestamped for today would be less > readable. > Oh, I agree - the removal is certainly desirable. I meant whether the non-removal of not-today's date is intentional :-) Nick