Re: tags-tree question

[Pete Phillips <pete@smtl.co.uk>]

Hi Carsten

    Carsten> I have now removed the speed-penalty on this syntax.  So
    Carsten> if, during a tag search, you use property-like expressions
    Carsten> for TODO, LEVEL, or CATEGORY, there will be no speed
    Carsten> penalty involved.  If you access any other properties,
    Carsten> there will be a one-time penalty.  Once you have paid that
    Carsten> penalty for a single property, it is cheap to test
    Carsten> additional properties (unless inheritance is involved).

Many thanks for doing this. I haven't had the chance to try it out yet
(been too busy actually getting things off my Home list this w/e! - oh -
and letting fireworks off tonight as well <grin>) but your solution from
last week using the non-intuitive method worked perfectly for me anyhow.

On a related question, is it possible to set up an
org-agenda-custom-command to pick out a set of tags, all of which have
NEXT as a todo-type, and which either have no scheduled date, OR which
have a scheduled or deadline date less than or equal to 1 month in the
future.

For example, show lines with 

    NEXT and (Home | LaptopH | DIY) 

where either there is no scheduled (or perhaps, deadline) date OR 

	Scheduled Date <= today + 1 month

My thinking on this is that sometimes I have next actions (such as
cutting my pampas grass every january), which would be set up like this:

*** NEXT Cut pampass grass :DIY:
SCHEDULED: <2009-01-12 Thu>

My current setup uses this:

 ("h" "Home Stuff (Next)"
  ((tags "Home//NEXT" nil)
   (tags "DIY//NEXT" nil)
   (tags "LaptopH//NEXT" nil)
  nil)

The problem at the moment is that it shows up all year in my Home Stuff
(Next) list (which searches for Home|LaptopH|DIY with NEXT todotypes),
but I only want it to start showing up about a month before the date I
have decided I need to do it. At the moment, NEXT items which I will
need to do, but which I can't do anything about until nearer the time,
clutter up my action lists.

Is there any way to do this ?

Cheers,
Pete