From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bernt Hansen Subject: Re: Release: Org-mode 5.09 Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:23:53 -0400 Message-ID: <87k5qlza86.fsf@gollum.intra.norang.ca> References: <200709181700.17786.zslevin@gmail.com> <572452f66890dd8ebca04908cbd33e29@gmail.com> <87y7f3v5qh.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <69ce18fe638d5ec66232d221c36c7814@science.uva.nl> <871wctcvfa.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87zlzhsa4d.fsf@aka.i.naked.iki.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IYMxI-0000Pq-DF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:24:36 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IYMxH-0000PL-MF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:24:35 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IYMxH-0000PG-Jl for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:24:35 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IYMxG-00056A-Uu for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:24:35 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IYMx0-0005l9-3t for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:24:18 +0200 Received: from cpe000102d0fe75-cm0012256ecbde.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ([74.119.210.211]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:24:18 +0200 Received: from bernt by cpe000102d0fe75-cm0012256ecbde.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:24:18 +0200 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Nuutti Kotivuori writes: > Bastien wrote: >> The only thing that still tickles me here is that the *default* priority >> is not the *easiest* to assign. So why not this: > > I've never understood what's the difference between a line with the > default priority and a line without a priority at all. That is, with > the default settings: > > * [#B] Foo > * Bar > > Are these not equivalent in priority sorting? If so, why should the > default priority be ever explicitly said? I never use [#B] priority. I only set A and C. I'm in the habit of globally replacing [#B] with nothing since I think the task item looks much cleaner without it (since it shows up in timelog reports and on the agenda). Bernt