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.
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
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
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
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).
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
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
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
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
"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
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
"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
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
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
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
"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
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