From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: Clock time implied as 00:00 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:47:47 -0500 Message-ID: <15228.1325188067@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> References: <87pqf7b9jt.fsf@iro.umontreal.ca> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38189) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgLxA-0005kO-87 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:47:53 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgLx8-0004ec-Vx for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:47:52 -0500 Received: from g6t0184.atlanta.hp.com ([15.193.32.61]:39430) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RgLx8-0004eV-R9 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:47:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: Message from pinard@iro.umontreal.ca (=?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Futf-?= =?us-ascii?Q?8=3FQ=3FFran=3DC3=3DA7ois=3F=3D?= Pinard) of "Thu\, 29 Dec 2011 11\:57\:10 EST." <87pqf7b9jt.fsf@iro.umontreal.ca> 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: =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Futf-8=3FQ=3FFran=3DC3=3DA7?= =?us-ascii?Q?ois=3F=3D?= Pinard Cc: nicholas.dokos@hp.com, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Fran=C3=A7ois Pinard wrote: > Hi, Org people. >=20 > This morning, I just noticed this line: >=20 > CLOCK: [2011-12-29 jeu 9:30]--[2011-12-29 jeu 11:44] =3D> 11:44 >=20 > because of the strange 11:44 total. My error is clear, as I wrote 9:30 > instead of 09:30. Correcting it gives a move reasonable total: >=20 > CLOCK: [2011-12-29 jeu 09:30]--[2011-12-29 jeu 11:44] =3D> 2:14 >=20 > Yet, forgetting a leading 0 is an easy mistake (I know I should not make > mistakes!), and then, maybe (I'm not sure) Org mode could deliver > unexpected or misleading statistics out of a silent error. Not such a > problem for me, yet it could have become one if I missed it. >=20 > Would it be reasonable to suggest that Org mode be more lenient about > missing leading zeroes? >=20 IMO, yes. This looks like a bug in org-parse-time-string which is supposed to be an optimized parse-time-string, but look: ,---- | (setq ts "2011-12-29 Thu 2:11") | "2011-12-29 Thu 2:11" |=20 | (parse-time-string ts) | (0 11 2 29 12 2011 4 nil nil) | (org-parse-time-string ts) | (0 0 0 29 12 2011 nil nil nil) `---- Nick > Fran=C3=A7ois >=20 > P.S. I wish every one is enjoying the Festive Times! >=20 >=20