From: "Egli Christian (KIRO 41)" <christian.egli@credit-suisse.com>
To: Richard G Riley <rileyrgdev@googlemail.com>, Bastien <bzg@altern.org>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: RE: resheduling from agenda buffer
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:50:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52D89C75FEE9444E8D9C016E3730098306CE40@chsa1036.share.beluni.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <pak5qa4xkf.fsf@dev.shamrockirishbar.com>
Richard G Riley <rileyrgdev@googlemail.com> writes:
> Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
> >> Richard G Riley <rileyrgdev@googlemail.com> writes:
> >> 2) What is the reason behind having to manually "refresh" after a
> >> reschedule in the agenda buffer, why does it not do it
automatically?
> > I think the reason is to warn you about the modification without
having
> > to save it. Actually reschedule often happens more than once before
you
> > need to save the modified buffers, so it makes sense to only save
when
> > you're done with all the modification...
I think the reason is the principle of least surprise. If you change the
priority of an item or reschedule it (e.g. to next week) it suddenly
disapears on you if refresh happens automatically. I usually do a
S-right a couple of times to reschedule items. Imagine what I would have
to do if refresh happened automatically. I would reschedule to the next
day then move the cursor to the next day, reschedule again, etc. I much
prefer the current behaviour.
> It doesn't really make sense because as you reschedule its easy to
> forget which ones you already have rescheduled and end up trying to
> reschedule an already rescheduled one. Which is exactly what happened
to
> me. Like other operations on the agenda it's my (noob) opinion that it
> should refresh immediately or only confusion (as in this case)
results.
I can see your case, but think of the consequences of an immediate
refresh. What happens if you reshedule a task to next week? Where should
point go? To the next task? Should the point stay on the task, i.e. move
to the next week? You open a can of worms. That's why a simple solution
is the best. It doesn't surprise the user.
HTH
Christian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-09-28 15:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-09-28 1:15 resheduling from agenda buffer Richard G Riley
2007-09-28 14:07 ` Carsten Dominik
2007-09-29 12:45 ` Carsten Dominik
2007-09-28 15:19 ` Bastien
2007-09-28 15:30 ` Richard G Riley
2007-09-28 15:50 ` Egli Christian (KIRO 41) [this message]
2007-09-28 16:09 ` Bastien
2007-09-28 16:17 ` Richard G Riley
2007-09-28 16:10 ` Richard G Riley
2007-09-28 16:03 ` Bastien
2007-09-28 18:14 ` John Wiegley
Reply instructions:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52D89C75FEE9444E8D9C016E3730098306CE40@chsa1036.share.beluni.net \
--to=christian.egli@credit-suisse.com \
--cc=bzg@altern.org \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
--cc=rileyrgdev@googlemail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
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).