From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard G Riley Subject: Re: resheduling from agenda buffer Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:10:24 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87r6kix1fl.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <52D89C75FEE9444E8D9C016E3730098306CE40@chsa1036.share.beluni.net> 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 1IbIQC-0000JG-3D for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:10:32 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IbIQ8-0000Iw-In for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:10:31 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IbIQ8-0000In-EF for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:10:28 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IbIQ7-0004cC-8B for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:10:27 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m4so1771804uge for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:10:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <52D89C75FEE9444E8D9C016E3730098306CE40@chsa1036.share.beluni.net> (Egli Christian's message of "Fri\, 28 Sep 2007 17\:50\:03 +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: "Egli Christian (KIRO 41)" Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Richard G Riley "Egli Christian (KIRO 41)" writes: > Richard G Riley writes: > >> Bastien writes: >> >> Richard G Riley 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. While I can understand that, it certainly surprises the user to try and reschedule a task that isn't really there. I would suggest that the only sensible and usable and consistent thing to do is to mark it as changed like with the S- .. in this case it hilites the entry as changed but you can continue to work on it. And then refresh (r) obviously moves all tasks to their correct positions while leaving the cursor at the current/next line. The functionality for S- is perfect. > > HTH > Christian