From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bernt Hansen <bernt@norang.ca>
Subject: Re: Possible bug in ordered tasks
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 07:34:08 -0400
Message-ID: <877hlmdo3z.fsf@gollum.intra.norang.ca>
References: <4C1B93D4.1050000@sift.info>
	<4264D53A-92CE-43C1-A7CC-5526DDD90BC4@gmail.com>
	<4C24ADBD.3090204@sift.info>
	<5896B53A-BDA5-4D02-9DD5-7121A8DB0165@gmail.com>
	<87eifvdjsm.fsf@gollum.intra.norang.ca>
	<3A51DA88-E03E-40EE-8CB4-51C8589E1108@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46622 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OSTeJ-0008Pb-8W
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Jun 2010 07:34:16 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <bernt@norang.ca>) id 1OSTeH-0006bH-U4
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Jun 2010 07:34:15 -0400
Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.71]:63808)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <bernt@norang.ca>) id 1OSTeH-0006az-Sc
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Jun 2010 07:34:13 -0400
In-Reply-To: <3A51DA88-E03E-40EE-8CB4-51C8589E1108@gmail.com> (Carsten
	Dominik's message of "Sat\, 26 Jun 2010 07\:55\:20 +0200")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>
Cc: Org Mode <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>, rpgoldman@sift.info

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jun 25, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Bernt Hansen wrote:
>
>> Having a way to undefine a property would be good in general I think.
>
> This does now work, the property value "nil" will now be interpreted as
> explicit undefine of a property.

Thanks!!

-Bernt