From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jacek Generowicz Subject: Re: Sort TODOs in agenda day Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:24:56 +0100 Message-ID: <58b1290a-d578-477e-b5ad-c9d77cb02a52@CERNFE23.cern.ch> References: <9d834356-f72b-440a-91af-fee555f76c32@CERNFE22.cern.ch> <87mx94lnjy.fsf@norang.ca> <4d473cc8-5801-4545-8b93-2b72157878de@CERNFE22.cern.ch> <8762frkbyz.fsf@norang.ca> <944812b5-d705-48d5-8ad0-aa5305f43352@CERNFE23.cern.ch> <87ipjqhg28.fsf@norang.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:55293) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rssua-00072w-0e for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 04:25:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RssuY-0005oV-UA for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 04:24:59 -0500 Received: from cernmx32.cern.ch ([137.138.144.178]:40019) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RssuY-0005oR-I8 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 04:24:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87ipjqhg28.fsf@norang.ca> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Bernt Hansen Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org At Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:51:59 -0500, Bernt Hansen wrote: > You can add BOTH time-up and effort-up to the sorting strategy for the > agenda and time will prevail - for items with a time, and effort will be > the next sorting criteria. The point I missed is that time-up will only be applied to those items have a date-stamp for the day in question, so that effort-up will not be outranked by time-up for the rest of the entries. > Have you tried this? > > ;; Sorting order for tasks on the agenda > (setq org-agenda-sorting-strategy > (quote ((agenda time-up effort-up)))) I have now: initially I thought that the time-up would leave nothing for effort-up to work on. > When I was first experimented with the sorting strategy I used the > customize interface to set it for the current session only and looked at > the result of my agenda with the new setting. Yes, setting configurations for current session only is a huge boon for trials, but the clunky customize interface for manipulating the values is a bit annoying compared to Emacs' built in sexpr manipulation. Swapping the order of two sorting strategy entries, for example, is very painful compared to C-M-t. Is there some convenient way of, say, swapping entries in the customize interface? > (setq org-agenda-sorting-strategy > (quote ((agenda habit-down time-up user-defined-up priority-down effort-up category-keep) > (todo category-up priority-down effort-up) > (tags category-up priority-down effort-up) > (search category-up)))) > > so for the agenda daily view habits are at the bottom, and timed items > are at the top, then my user-defined sorting function sorts what is left > for the middle section of the list in the following order: It's still not entirely clear to me how these options work. Take habit-down, at the beginning. What do the '-down' and '-up' mean? I infer that they might have one of two meanings: in 'habit-down' the '-down' seems to mean that habits should be placed at the bottom, while in 'effort-down' I infer that it means that items with an effort property should be sorted by decreasing effort, relative to eachother. There's clearly some confusion in my mind about how these work. > - items with no schedule/deadline and timestamped for today > - deadlines for today > - late deadlines > - scheduled items for today > - late scheduled items > - and pending deadlines last Incidentally, why did you need to create a macro which captures num-a, num-b result, for your implementation of bh/agenda-sort? AFAICT, functions which return +1,-1 or nil would have been adeqate here. What have I missed?