* org priority cycling - removing priorities
@ 2007-09-06 13:37 Rick Moynihan
2007-09-06 14:25 ` William Henney
` (4 more replies)
0 siblings, 5 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Rick Moynihan @ 2007-09-06 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
Every now and then I find myself mispressing SHIFT-up/SHIFT-down on an
outline and assigning a priority to it. This then often leads me to
navigating the point to the priority to delete it manually.
It would be great if SHIFT-up/SHIFT-down would cycle through:
[#A]
[#B]
[#C]
_ - blank (i.e. no priority).
This way I could easily undo the operation with the same keys. Is there
any good reason not to have this behaviour?
R.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: org priority cycling - removing priorities
2007-09-06 13:37 org priority cycling - removing priorities Rick Moynihan
@ 2007-09-06 14:25 ` William Henney
2007-09-07 8:04 ` Carsten Dominik
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: William Henney @ 2007-09-06 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rick Moynihan; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
Hi Rick
On 9/6/07, Rick Moynihan <rick@calicojack.co.uk> wrote:
> Every now and then I find myself mispressing SHIFT-up/SHIFT-down on an
> outline and assigning a priority to it. This then often leads me to
> navigating the point to the priority to delete it manually.
>
In the meantime, you can always use "C-_" to undo the mistake...
Cheers
Will
--
Dr William Henney, Centro de Radioastronomía y Astrofísica,
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Campus Morelia
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: org priority cycling - removing priorities
2007-09-06 13:37 org priority cycling - removing priorities Rick Moynihan
2007-09-06 14:25 ` William Henney
@ 2007-09-07 8:04 ` Carsten Dominik
2007-09-09 14:30 ` Numeric Priorities (Was: Re: org priority cycling - removing priorities) Nuutti Kotivuori
2007-09-07 9:08 ` org priority cycling - removing priorities Dmitri Minaev
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Carsten Dominik @ 2007-09-07 8:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rick Moynihan; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
On Sep 6, 2007, at 15:37, Rick Moynihan wrote:
> Every now and then I find myself mispressing SHIFT-up/SHIFT-down on an
> outline and assigning a priority to it. This then often leads me to
> navigating the point to the priority to delete it manually.
>
> It would be great if SHIFT-up/SHIFT-down would cycle through:
>
> [#A]
> [#B]
> [#C]
> _ - blank (i.e. no priority).
>
> This way I could easily undo the operation with the same keys. Is
> there any good reason not to have this behaviour?
Don't know how good this reason is, but here it is:
The default priority is #B. If you press S-up on an entry without
priority, it
will switch immediately to #A. Similarly, S-down will go immediately
to #C.
If I were to include the empty state in the cycling, S-up would go
#A -> nil #A -> nil
But as I said, this may not be good enough a reason. Open for
discussion.
- Carsten
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: org priority cycling - removing priorities
2007-09-06 13:37 org priority cycling - removing priorities Rick Moynihan
2007-09-06 14:25 ` William Henney
2007-09-07 8:04 ` Carsten Dominik
@ 2007-09-07 9:08 ` Dmitri Minaev
2007-09-07 14:00 ` Renzo Been
2007-09-10 1:00 ` Xavier Maillard
4 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Dmitri Minaev @ 2007-09-07 9:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rick Moynihan; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
On 9/6/07, Rick Moynihan <rick@calicojack.co.uk> wrote:
> Every now and then I find myself mispressing SHIFT-up/SHIFT-down on an
> outline and assigning a priority to it. This then often leads me to
> navigating the point to the priority to delete it manually.
>
> This way I could easily undo the operation with the same keys. Is there
> any good reason not to have this behaviour?
C-c , <Space> seems comfortable enough to suffice...
--
With best regards,
Dmitri Minaev
Russian history blog: http://minaev.blogspot.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: org priority cycling - removing priorities
2007-09-06 13:37 org priority cycling - removing priorities Rick Moynihan
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2007-09-07 9:08 ` org priority cycling - removing priorities Dmitri Minaev
@ 2007-09-07 14:00 ` Renzo Been
2007-09-10 1:00 ` Xavier Maillard
4 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Renzo Been @ 2007-09-07 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
Yes,
I agree, the same mis-typing also happens with me, so this woulb be a good
option...
Ciao,
Renzo
Rick Moynihan <rick <at> calicojack.co.uk> writes:
It would be great if SHIFT-up/SHIFT-down would cycle through:
[#A]
[#B]
[#C]
_ - blank (i.e. no priority).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Numeric Priorities (Was: Re: org priority cycling - removing priorities)
2007-09-07 8:04 ` Carsten Dominik
@ 2007-09-09 14:30 ` Nuutti Kotivuori
2007-09-13 5:25 ` Carsten Dominik
2007-09-24 9:14 ` Dmitri Minaev
0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Nuutti Kotivuori @ 2007-09-09 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
Carsten Dominik wrote:
> But as I said, this may not be good enough a reason. Open for
> discussion.
I find the priority settings almost unusable for me.
For personal things, I just use them simply with the default settings
to mark tasks that really should be done ASAP ([#A]) - and tasks which
really aren't so important at all ([#C]). This is fine enough.
But for my work tasks, priorities are really important as they are
given to me externally. So I need a lot of priority levels, both up
and down from the default. And atleast I'm not so savvy with alphabet,
that I could instantly see how much less important [#P] is than [#T] -
especially with respect to the default level etc.
So, how about adding a new feature, org-todo-use-numeric-priorities.
This would make the priorities be like:
* TODO [#+2] Task 1
* TODO [#+1] Task 2
* TODO Task 3
* TODO [#-1] Task 4
* TODO [#-2] Task 5
And there wouldn't need to be any "highest" or "lowest" values for the
priorities. Also, I couldn't ever figure out why there needs to be a
way to specify the default priority explicitly (eg. [#B] vs. lines
that have none) - so I'd just vote for dropping that - no priority
listed if the priority is zero.
This way I could always set some task on a higher priority if
necessary, or a lower one - and I'd only have problems if I need to
have something in between priorities (if we don't go for float values
;)), but that should be easily solvable by a bit of preplanning or
just editing a few task priorities.
How about it?
-- Naked
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: org priority cycling - removing priorities
2007-09-06 13:37 org priority cycling - removing priorities Rick Moynihan
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2007-09-07 14:00 ` Renzo Been
@ 2007-09-10 1:00 ` Xavier Maillard
4 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Xavier Maillard @ 2007-09-10 1:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rick Moynihan; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
Every now and then I find myself mispressing SHIFT-up/SHIFT-down on an
outline and assigning a priority to it. This then often leads me to
navigating the point to the priority to delete it manually.
I also miss something here: one more step to remove a priority in
this cycling story.
Xavier
--
http://www.gnu.org
http://www.april.org
http://www.lolica.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Numeric Priorities (Was: Re: org priority cycling - removing priorities)
2007-09-09 14:30 ` Numeric Priorities (Was: Re: org priority cycling - removing priorities) Nuutti Kotivuori
@ 2007-09-13 5:25 ` Carsten Dominik
2007-09-24 9:14 ` Dmitri Minaev
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Carsten Dominik @ 2007-09-13 5:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nuutti Kotivuori; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
Hi,
On Sep 9, 2007, at 16:30, Nuutti Kotivuori wrote:
> Carsten Dominik wrote:
>> But as I said, this may not be good enough a reason. Open for
>> discussion.
>
> I find the priority settings almost unusable for me.
[...]
> But for my work tasks, priorities are really important as they are
> given to me externally. So I need a lot of priority levels, both up
> and down from the default. And atleast I'm not so savvy with alphabet,
> that I could instantly see how much less important [#P] is than [#T] -
> especially with respect to the default level etc.
>
You can do all this by just inserting your own marker into entries.
The question is what do you want to *do* with these.
> So, how about adding a new feature, org-todo-use-numeric-priorities.
>
> This would make the priorities be like:
>
> * TODO [#+2] Task 1
> * TODO [#+1] Task 2
> * TODO Task 3
> * TODO [#-1] Task 4
> * TODO [#-2] Task 5
You can use priorities 0-9 now. Me personally, I believe this
priority game becomes entirely useless for more than a few values.
Any other takes on this?
- Carsten
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Numeric Priorities (Was: Re: org priority cycling - removing priorities)
2007-09-09 14:30 ` Numeric Priorities (Was: Re: org priority cycling - removing priorities) Nuutti Kotivuori
2007-09-13 5:25 ` Carsten Dominik
@ 2007-09-24 9:14 ` Dmitri Minaev
2007-09-24 9:19 ` Numeric Priorities Bastien
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Dmitri Minaev @ 2007-09-24 9:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nuutti Kotivuori; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
On 9/9/07, Nuutti Kotivuori <naked@iki.fi> wrote:
> And there wouldn't need to be any "highest" or "lowest" values for the
> priorities. Also, I couldn't ever figure out why there needs to be a
> way to specify the default priority explicitly (eg. [#B] vs. lines
> that have none) - so I'd just vote for dropping that - no priority
> listed if the priority is zero.
>
> This way I could always set some task on a higher priority if
> necessary, or a lower one - and I'd only have problems if I need to
> have something in between priorities (if we don't go for float values
> ;)), but that should be easily solvable by a bit of preplanning or
> just editing a few task priorities.
Terve, Nuutti,
I often use priorities, but I would rather call them some other way,
since this name is somewhat misleading. For example, my reading diary
has the following header:
#+PRIORITIES: 1 9 5
and I rate the read books from 1 to 9. I leave the books unrated till
I finish reading. So, to equal missing priority to a default priority
would break this system.
--
With best regards,
Dmitri Minaev
Russian history blog: http://minaev.blogspot.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Numeric Priorities
2007-09-24 9:14 ` Dmitri Minaev
@ 2007-09-24 9:19 ` Bastien
2007-09-24 9:50 ` Dmitri Minaev
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Bastien @ 2007-09-24 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
"Dmitri Minaev" <minaev@gmail.com> writes:
> #+PRIORITIES: 1 9 5
>
> and I rate the read books from 1 to 9. I leave the books unrated till
> I finish reading. So, to equal missing priority to a default priority
> would break this system.
And maybe you would prefer the default priority for your books (5) be
the first reachable one ... (see previous discussion in this thread.)
--
Bastien
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Numeric Priorities
2007-09-24 9:19 ` Numeric Priorities Bastien
@ 2007-09-24 9:50 ` Dmitri Minaev
2007-09-24 11:00 ` Bastien
2007-09-24 11:02 ` Nuutti Kotivuori
0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Dmitri Minaev @ 2007-09-24 9:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bastien; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
On 9/24/07, Bastien <bzg@altern.org> wrote:
> And maybe you would prefer the default priority for your books (5) be
> the first reachable one ... (see previous discussion in this thread.)
Reachable via C-up? It is. But Nuutti offered to interpret the absent
priority as the default one, and I prefer to differentiate between the
unrated entries and the entries with a priority.
--
With best regards,
Dmitri Minaev
Russian history blog: http://minaev.blogspot.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Numeric Priorities
2007-09-24 9:50 ` Dmitri Minaev
@ 2007-09-24 11:00 ` Bastien
2007-09-24 11:17 ` Dmitri Minaev
2007-09-24 11:02 ` Nuutti Kotivuori
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Bastien @ 2007-09-24 11:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
"Dmitri Minaev" <minaev@gmail.com> writes:
> On 9/24/07, Bastien <bzg@altern.org> wrote:
>> And maybe you would prefer the default priority for your books (5) be
>> the first reachable one ... (see previous discussion in this thread.)
>
> Reachable via C-up?
(I assume you meant S-up?)
> It is. But Nuutti offered to interpret the absent priority as the
> default one, and I prefer to differentiate between the unrated entries
> and the entries with a priority.
With Org 5.09 and #+PRIORITIES: A C B you need to do press S-up S-down
(or S-down S-up) to set the default priority -- or did I miss something?
My suggestion [1] was that S-up/down first set the *default* priority,
then increases/decreases the priority cookie. Anyway, it looks like this
request depends too much of what *I* expect from priorities, so I won't
dwell too much on this, it's not that important to me.
Thanks,
Notes:
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/3255/match=priority
--
Bastien
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Numeric Priorities
2007-09-24 9:50 ` Dmitri Minaev
2007-09-24 11:00 ` Bastien
@ 2007-09-24 11:02 ` Nuutti Kotivuori
2007-09-24 11:44 ` Carsten Dominik
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Nuutti Kotivuori @ 2007-09-24 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
Dmitri Minaev wrote:
> But Nuutti offered to interpret the absent priority as the default
> one, and I prefer to differentiate between the unrated entries and
> the entries with a priority.
If I haven't understood this completely wrong, it *is* interpreted as
the same!
That is, entries with no priority are sorted at the same spot as
entries with the default priority - and entries with lower than
default priority are sorted below them.
If you are not talking about sorting, then I don't know what you are
talking about - since sorting is the only thing I can see priorities
affecting, otherwise they are just letters on a line with no
special significance.
-- Naked
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Numeric Priorities
2007-09-24 11:00 ` Bastien
@ 2007-09-24 11:17 ` Dmitri Minaev
2007-09-24 13:28 ` Bastien
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Dmitri Minaev @ 2007-09-24 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bastien; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
On 9/24/07, Bastien <bzg@altern.org> wrote:
> > Reachable via C-up?
>
> (I assume you meant S-up?)
Ahem... Yes. :)
> With Org 5.09 and #+PRIORITIES: A C B you need to do press S-up S-down
> (or S-down S-up) to set the default priority -- or did I miss something?
>
> My suggestion [1] was that S-up/down first set the *default* priority,
> then increases/decreases the priority cookie. Anyway, it looks like this
> request depends too much of what *I* expect from priorities, so I won't
> dwell too much on this, it's not that important to me.
Ah, but the notion of the default priority has no special meaning
besides what jumps up after the first S-up, so we can easily assume
that the "default" priority is A :). Or set the priorities line to
#+PRIORITIES: A C C
--
With best regards,
Dmitri Minaev
Russian history blog: http://minaev.blogspot.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Numeric Priorities
2007-09-24 11:02 ` Nuutti Kotivuori
@ 2007-09-24 11:44 ` Carsten Dominik
2007-09-27 12:36 ` Dmitri Minaev
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Carsten Dominik @ 2007-09-24 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nuutti Kotivuori; +Cc: emacs-orgmode
On Sep 24, 2007, at 4:02, Nuutti Kotivuori wrote:
> Dmitri Minaev wrote:
>> But Nuutti offered to interpret the absent priority as the default
>> one, and I prefer to differentiate between the unrated entries and
>> the entries with a priority.
>
> If I haven't understood this completely wrong, it *is* interpreted as
> the same!
>
> That is, entries with no priority are sorted at the same spot as
> entries with the default priority - and entries with lower than
> default priority are sorted below them.
This is correct.
- Carsten
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Numeric Priorities
2007-09-24 11:17 ` Dmitri Minaev
@ 2007-09-24 13:28 ` Bastien
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Bastien @ 2007-09-24 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
"Dmitri Minaev" <minaev@gmail.com> writes:
> Ah, but the notion of the default priority has no special meaning
> besides what jumps up after the first S-up, so we can easily assume
> that the "default" priority is A :).
Indeed.
> Or set the priorities line to #+PRIORITIES: A C C
But then S-down on a headline with no priority yields this message:
"No priority cookie found in line" -- which might actually be okay.
Again, maybe this is just *my* own bias that make me feel the cycling
should not stop... and again, we shouldn't fuss to much on this issue!
--
Bastien
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Numeric Priorities
2007-09-24 11:44 ` Carsten Dominik
@ 2007-09-27 12:36 ` Dmitri Minaev
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Dmitri Minaev @ 2007-09-27 12:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
On 9/24/07, Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> wrote:
> > That is, entries with no priority are sorted at the same spot as
> > entries with the default priority - and entries with lower than
> > default priority are sorted below them.
>
> This is correct.
Indeed. Sorry.
--
With best regards,
Dmitri Minaev
Russian history blog: http://minaev.blogspot.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-09-27 12:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-09-06 13:37 org priority cycling - removing priorities Rick Moynihan
2007-09-06 14:25 ` William Henney
2007-09-07 8:04 ` Carsten Dominik
2007-09-09 14:30 ` Numeric Priorities (Was: Re: org priority cycling - removing priorities) Nuutti Kotivuori
2007-09-13 5:25 ` Carsten Dominik
2007-09-24 9:14 ` Dmitri Minaev
2007-09-24 9:19 ` Numeric Priorities Bastien
2007-09-24 9:50 ` Dmitri Minaev
2007-09-24 11:00 ` Bastien
2007-09-24 11:17 ` Dmitri Minaev
2007-09-24 13:28 ` Bastien
2007-09-24 11:02 ` Nuutti Kotivuori
2007-09-24 11:44 ` Carsten Dominik
2007-09-27 12:36 ` Dmitri Minaev
2007-09-07 9:08 ` org priority cycling - removing priorities Dmitri Minaev
2007-09-07 14:00 ` Renzo Been
2007-09-10 1:00 ` Xavier Maillard
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).