Hi, When using (print (org-element-parse-buffer 'headline)) on this test file: * TODO test bla bla bla DEADLINE: <2012-11-08 Thu 12:17> the output has no information about the deadline with latest git-version. How could I solve this problem please? TIA for any hints, -- Peter
Hello,
Peter Münster <pmlists@free.fr> writes:
> * TODO test
> bla bla bla
> DEADLINE: <2012-11-08 Thu 12:17>
In Org, planning info (scheduled, deadline, and closed) must be put just
after the headline. Your example isn't valid.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
On Mon, Nov 12 2012, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>> * TODO test
>> bla bla bla
>> DEADLINE: <2012-11-08 Thu 12:17>
>
> In Org, planning info (scheduled, deadline, and closed) must be put just
> after the headline. Your example isn't valid.
Then, org-agenda should ignore that too, shouldn't it?
--
Peter
Peter Münster <pmlists@free.fr> writes: > On Mon, Nov 12 2012, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: >> In Org, planning info (scheduled, deadline, and closed) must be put just >> after the headline. Your example isn't valid. > > Then, org-agenda should ignore that too, shouldn't it? Strictly speaking, yes. But Org Agenda is a bit permissive (and not only for that thing). Do you want to help basing Agenda on Elements? Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
On Sat, Nov 24 2012, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Do you want to help basing Agenda on Elements?
No, sorry. I don't use the agenda, I prefer push to poll. That's why I
wrote org-notify.el.
Anyway, the syntax highlighting is a bit permissive too...
--
Peter
Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> writes:
> Peter Münster <pmlists@free.fr> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 12 2012, Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
>
>>> In Org, planning info (scheduled, deadline, and closed) must be put just
>>> after the headline. Your example isn't valid.
>>
>> Then, org-agenda should ignore that too, shouldn't it?
>
> Strictly speaking, yes. But Org Agenda is a bit permissive (and not only
> for that thing). Do you want to help basing Agenda on Elements?
This is something I was wondering about -- so that is the plan
eventually? This is something I've wanted for a while, as it would make
some of my little personal projects a lot easier. I'd be happy to help
if there's a roadmap, and if I can be fed bite-sized problems to deal
with.
E
Hello, Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes: >> Strictly speaking, yes. But Org Agenda is a bit permissive (and not only >> for that thing). Do you want to help basing Agenda on Elements? > > This is something I was wondering about -- so that is the plan > eventually? Since we have a complete parser, it would be good to use it as much as possible. It will alleviate the need to use regexps and normalize Org syntax. One downside, though, is that it isn't fast enough yet for speed critical operations (i.e. fontification). A caching mechanism would be required to go further (any taker?). Org Elements is quite simple to use: API basically boils down to five functions. For a global action, the main function to use is `org-element-parse-buffer'. At the element level (paragraphs, tables...), it is `org-element-at-point'. At the object level (links, emphasis...), it is `org-element-context'. Then you extract properties (resp. type) with `org-element-property' (resp. `org-element-type'). You can get a list of all properties available for each element/object by looking at: http://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-export-reference.html#attributes or by looking at org-element.el source code, obviously. In order to get started, you can study navigation/manipulation functions in org.el (from `org-forward-element' to `org-unindent-buffer'). > This is something I've wanted for a while, as it would make > some of my little personal projects a lot easier. I'd be happy to help > if there's a roadmap, and if I can be fed bite-sized problems to deal > with. There's no roadmap for now. If you're looking for small tasks to handle, I think interactive functions are a good start (although some can be a bit challenging, i.e. `org-open-link'). Particularly good candidates are those calling either `org-at-regexp-p', `org-in-regexp' or `org-between-regexps-p': using those is almost always wrong (or at least fragile). If you give a shot at some of them, please include ert tests: writings tests for Org is really a must from now on. There are now plenty of examples in testing directory. Thank you for your interest in this. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com> writes: > Hello, > > Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes: > >>> Strictly speaking, yes. But Org Agenda is a bit permissive (and not only >>> for that thing). Do you want to help basing Agenda on Elements? [...] >> This is something I've wanted for a while, as it would make >> some of my little personal projects a lot easier. I'd be happy to help >> if there's a roadmap, and if I can be fed bite-sized problems to deal >> with. > > There's no roadmap for now. If you're looking for small tasks to handle, > I think interactive functions are a good start (although some can be > a bit challenging, i.e. `org-open-link'). Particularly good candidates > are those calling either `org-at-regexp-p', `org-in-regexp' or > `org-between-regexps-p': using those is almost always wrong (or at least > fragile). > > If you give a shot at some of them, please include ert tests: writings > tests for Org is really a must from now on. There are now plenty of > examples in testing directory. Great, thanks for the pointers. I'll see if I can't provide a few patches in the next couple of weeks. E