From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: my capture template generates a literal "%?" Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:37:55 -0400 Message-ID: <18245.1344523075@alphaville> References: <502364D2.7030208@googlemail.com> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38770) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SzTsD-0007ls-Vb for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:38:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SzTs6-0006YE-LX for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:38:05 -0400 Received: from g4t0017.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.20]:4537) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SzTs6-0006Xq-Ey for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:37:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: Message from G of "Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:20:50 +0200." <502364D2.7030208@googlemail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: G Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org G wrote: > Hi, > > I am using Emacs 24.1 in Win7 (64bit) and Org 7.8.11. > I would like to have a capture template that just puts me at the end > of my journal in plain text (although date tree) after a custom time > stamp (e.g. 09:13). I tried the following > ("p" "Plain Journal" plain (file+datetree > "C:/Users/Geralb/Documents/privat/org/MyAgenda.org") > "%<%H:%M>\n\n%?" > :unnarrowed t :empty-lines 1) > > But in this template a literal %? is written and point is thereafter. > > I tried another template > ("e" "Entry Journal" entry (file+datetree > "C:/Users/Geralb/Documents/privat/org/MyAgenda.org") > "* Um %U von %a\n\n%?\n" > :empty-lines 1 :unnarrowed t) > > And this seems to work, but it's not what I would like to have. > > Did I write the template wrong? > I don't think so. I can reproduce it and I think it is a bug: %? does not seem to be interpreted in the first case, it is interpreted in the second case, but I don't know what causes the difference. Nick