From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: dates before 1970 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:16:08 -0500 Message-ID: <3861.1299860168@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> References: <87ei6en127.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <5422.1299798393@alphaville.usa.hp.com> <87ei6ehwld.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=55736 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Py5Bl-00067N-5Q for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:27:42 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Py5Bk-0007UR-1i for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:27:41 -0500 Received: from vms173017pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.17]:33402) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Py5Bj-0007TF-Uv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:27:40 -0500 Received: from alphaville.dokosmarshall.org ([unknown] [173.76.32.106]) by vms173017.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LHW00DRVJ1WVQ90@vms173017.mailsrvcs.net> for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:27:38 -0600 (CST) In-reply-to: Message from Eric S Fraga of "Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:47:58 GMT." <87ei6ehwld.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> 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: Eric S Fraga Cc: nicholas.dokos@hp.com, Emacs Org mode mailing list Eric S Fraga wrote: > > So I'd guess raising an exception might be the simplest way to deal with > > this. Here's a patch to try out: > > This seems to work fine. Thanks. > Maybe not - see Bastien's mail. > I am glad, however, that I can enter any date and then use the S- > etc. keys to get the date I want. Of course, I am not sure if anything > else in org breaks as a result... org-sparse-tree with very old > scheduled dates seems to work. Haven't tried much else and I would > guess few would notice? > That's the problem: one does not know whether the way from one date to another passes through the quicksand of internal emacs time. And as you say, any effects might escape notice. Nick