Dear all, I have a sexp entry that somehow works "less good" now. It's ** 11:00 Monthly PTB Telco %%(org-float t 2 3) (some more stuff) The agenda reads "SEXP entry returned empty string", whereas previously I got the headline. Putting something behind the sexp get me that, but the time is not recovered. I think this matches the example in the manual quite closely, so probably it's a bug. Any ideas? I'm on the current git but I don't update too regularly and it was broken before. Cheers, Simon
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 718 bytes --] Sorry, I was being dumb. All fine. To prevent further breakage, I am attaching a doc fix. I hope it is useable? Cheers, Simon On 11/06/2012 11:21 PM, Simon Thum wrote: > Dear all, > > I have a sexp entry that somehow works "less good" now. It's > > ** 11:00 Monthly PTB Telco > %%(org-float t 2 3) > (some more stuff) > > The agenda reads "SEXP entry returned empty string", whereas previously > I got the headline. > > Putting something behind the sexp get me that, but the time is not > recovered. > > I think this matches the example in the manual quite closely, so > probably it's a bug. Any ideas? I'm on the current git but I don't > update too regularly and it was broken before. > > Cheers, > > Simon > > [-- Attachment #2: 0001-document-another-sexp-timestamp-syntax.patch --] [-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 869 bytes --] From 247c3fdde300be13d20e591ca5f217ad0385de49 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Simon Thum <simon.thum@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:37:44 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] document another sexp timestamp syntax TINYCHANGE --- doc/org.texi | 9 +++++++++ 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/org.texi b/doc/org.texi index bf67876..30c1ce4 100644 --- a/doc/org.texi +++ b/doc/org.texi @@ -5571,6 +5571,15 @@ example with optional time <%%(org-float t 4 2)> @end example +A similar syntax that is different in terms of agenda results is + +@example +* Wife +%%(org-anniversary 2001 05 07) Wedding day (%d Years) +@end example + +Here, ``Wedding day (n Years)'' will show up in the agenda (if the headline matches). It is important that there is no leading space. + @item Time/Date range @cindex timerange @cindex date range -- 1.7.8.6
Hello,
Simon Thum <simon.thum@gmx.de> writes:
> To prevent further breakage, I am attaching a doc fix. I hope it is
> useable?
This is already documented in section 10.3.1 (Calendar/Diary
integration) of the manual. I don't think it's useful to drop another
note there.
Thanks for your patch, though.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
Simon Thum <simon.thum@gmx.de> writes:
> I know that, but I deemed it useful to document it as a related but
> separate mechanism on its own merit. Perhaps there could be a link to
> 10.3.1 to make it clear that the notations differ in important ways?
Since %%(...) syntax isn't a timestamp /per se/, there is no reason to
refer to it in the timestamps part of the manual.
Also, despite its own merit, it's an antiquated[fn:1] and irregular
syntax, which doesn't deserve much publicity. It won't disappear, but
it's better to circumvent its uses.
Regards,
[fn:1] Even the example given in "Calendar/Diary integration" section is
outdated, as it relies on CATEGORY keyword to change category on the fly
within the same section (see footnote in 10.4.1).
--
Nicolas Goaziou
On 11/10/2012 11:31 AM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Hello, > > Simon Thum<simon.thum@gmx.de> writes: > >> To prevent further breakage, I am attaching a doc fix. I hope it is >> useable? > > This is already documented in section 10.3.1 (Calendar/Diary > integration) of the manual. I don't think it's useful to drop another > note there. I know that, but I deemed it useful to document it as a related but separate mechanism on its own merit. Perhaps there could be a link to 10.3.1 to make it clear that the notations differ in important ways? Cheers, Simon > > Thanks for your patch, though. > > > Regards, >
On 11/10/2012 05:24 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Simon Thum<simon.thum@gmx.de> writes: > >> I know that, but I deemed it useful to document it as a related but >> separate mechanism on its own merit. Perhaps there could be a link to >> 10.3.1 to make it clear that the notations differ in important ways? > > Since %%(...) syntax isn't a timestamp /per se/, there is no reason to > refer to it in the timestamps part of the manual. > > Also, despite its own merit, it's an antiquated[fn:1] and irregular > syntax, which doesn't deserve much publicity. It won't disappear, but > it's better to circumvent its uses. I see, it just seemed to me that org-contacts uses it for (seemingly) good reasons and there is no replacement or deprecation. Is there missing consensus on this syntax? Cheers, Simon > > > Regards, > > [fn:1] Even the example given in "Calendar/Diary integration" section is > outdated, as it relies on CATEGORY keyword to change category on the fly > within the same section (see footnote in 10.4.1). >
Simon Thum <simon.thum@gmx.de> writes:
> I see, it just seemed to me that org-contacts uses it for (seemingly)
> good reasons and there is no replacement or deprecation. Is there
> missing consensus on this syntax?
I don't think so. AFAIU this syntax was created to include diary entries
without the overhead of generating the diary first. There are not meant
to be used as a replacement for timestamps.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
Simon Thum <simon.thum@gmx.de> writes:
> Sure. I'd appreciate if the new icalendar exporter would handle these
> entries (in particular org-contacts ones) - I didn't yet get it to
> export agendas. Is it possible to do that?
There's support for it (see `org-e-icalendar-include-sexps'). Internally
it uses the function `org-diary-to-ical-string', but, last time I tried,
this function wasn't able to return anything but the empty string. YMMV.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
On 11/12/2012 09:31 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Simon Thum<simon.thum@gmx.de> writes: > >> I see, it just seemed to me that org-contacts uses it for (seemingly) >> good reasons and there is no replacement or deprecation. Is there >> missing consensus on this syntax? > > I don't think so. AFAIU this syntax was created to include diary entries > without the overhead of generating the diary first. There are not meant > to be used as a replacement for timestamps. Sure. I'd appreciate if the new icalendar exporter would handle these entries (in particular org-contacts ones) - I didn't yet get it to export agendas. Is it possible to do that? Cheers, Simon > > > Regards, >