From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James TD Smith Subject: Re: [misc-new-features 1/5] Add two new special properties, SINCE and SINCE_IA. Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:59:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20090828175942.GF72276@yog-sothoth.mohorovi.cc> References: <1247473682-23338-1-git-send-email-ahktenzero@mohorovi.cc> <1247473682-23338-2-git-send-email-ahktenzero@mohorovi.cc> <87zlb344so.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <20090717182243.GB15275@yog-sothoth.mohorovi.cc> <87ws66jpu3.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mh5jt-0006Le-LP for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:59:53 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mh5jp-0006F0-Ov for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:59:53 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33732 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mh5jp-0006El-I9 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:59:49 -0400 Received: from 81-86-40-42.dsl.pipex.com ([81.86.40.42]:52024 helo=yog-sothoth.mohorovi.cc) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mh5jo-00072D-Tm for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:59:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Manish Cc: Bastien , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Manish, On 2009-08-27 21:20:53(+0530), Manish wrote: > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Bastien wrote: > > > > This patch is just a workaround, though. I think we should have a way of > > adding more than one custom function, as Mikael Fornius suggested when > > sending his first patch. > > > > Let's see what's Carsten take on this. > > This is/was a very interesting idea. Any thoughts if this would go in? Or did > it already go in and I missed it? Carsten and I agreed offlist not to apply my original patch, and that I would work on a better implementation using column summaries. I've got it mostly working. -- |---|