From: Carsten Dominik <email@example.com>
To: "I.S." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: David Maus <email@example.com>, Juan Pechiar <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Subject: Re: proposal for enhanced org-get-priority function
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:16:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F8DC134-334A-4208-AFC2-EDF85E8E98BC@gmail.com> (raw)
I have not added you patch as it is, because in some ways the syntax
it adds is
questionable, and, as others have pointed out, sorting can be done in
different ways, too.
However, instead, I have introduced a variable that can be set to a
user-defined function to compute the base priority of a node. So you
can simply put your function into that variable and continue to use
your special syntax, with us making it an official Org syntax.
The name of the variable is org-get-priority-function.
I hope this helps.
On Nov 15, 2010, at 7:05 PM, I.S. wrote:
> On 11/15/2010 7:07 AM, Juan Pechiar wrote:
>> I'm against feature-itis.
>> Orgmode has been losing some of its elegance to feature requests. And
>> by 'elegance' I mean ease of learning and using and maintaining, and
>> not having to decide between N different ways of achieving something
>> just because so many border-case features exist.
>> The agenda is for things you have to do today. Just do them.
>> If you need ordering, you have outlines and lists, properties, LISP,
>> hooks, column view, custom agenda views, etc.
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:25:30AM +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>>> I would like to have a show of hands who is interested in this
>>> treatment of finer priorities.
> That may be a fair point (although I tend to think that most of the
> features in orgmode are really useful). I'd like to point out,
> however, that the proposed change is completely backward compatible.
> If you don't want finer grained priorities, just don't add -<NUM>.
> Personally, I vote yes because I find the priorities in TODO lists
> very useful. In addition, I often find that I want to insert a new
> item between two existing ones and therefore having fine-grained
> priorities makes this easy to do.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-17 8:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-20 17:14 proposal for enhanced org-get-priority function I.S.
2010-10-24 19:18 ` David Maus
2010-10-24 20:05 ` George Pearson
2010-10-27 12:01 ` I.S.
2010-10-29 11:45 ` I.S.
2010-10-29 11:53 ` I.S.
2010-11-15 10:25 ` Carsten Dominik
2010-11-15 12:07 ` Juan Pechiar
2010-11-15 12:15 ` Carsten Dominik
2010-11-15 18:05 ` I.S.
2010-11-16 0:30 ` Samuel Wales
2010-11-17 8:16 ` Carsten Dominik [this message]
2010-11-17 13:11 ` I.S.
2010-11-17 19:21 ` Matt Lundin
2010-11-16 1:11 ` Matt Lundin
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
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).