Toggle between active and inactive timestamp in CLOCK line does not make sense

Toggle between active and inactive timestamp in CLOCK line does not make sense

[Rainer Stengele]

Hi,

having a CLOCK line: (example)
       [2012-06-26 Di 11:00]   CLOCK: [2012-06-26 Di 11:00]--[2012-06-26 Di 12:00] =>  1:00

many times I do adjust the timestamps.
Unintentionally having point on "]" and or "[" instead of the minute part of the timestamp
and shifting up or down in order to increase or decrease the timestamp the keypress switches the "]" to ">"
and the "[" to "<".

I would suggest to stop this behaviour, as it does not make sense in a CLOCK line.

Regards,
Rainer

Re: Toggle between active and inactive timestamp in CLOCK line does not make sense

[Karl Voit]

* Rainer Stengele <rainer.stengele@online.de> wrote:
> Hi,

Hallo Reiner!

> having a CLOCK line: (example)
>        [2012-06-26 Di 11:00]   CLOCK: [2012-06-26 Di 11:00]--[2012-06-26 Di 12:00] =>  1:00
>
> many times I do adjust the timestamps.
> Unintentionally having point on "]" and or "[" instead of the minute part of the timestamp
> and shifting up or down in order to increase or decrease the timestamp the keypress switches the "]" to ">"
> and the "[" to "<".
>
> I would suggest to stop this behaviour, as it does not make sense in a CLOCK line.

I suggest to keep this behavior because:

- it is consistent: being on brackets change the type.
  Everywhere, not just outside of CLOCK lines.

- Org-mode changes the timestamp according to the position of the
  cursor: on year it changes the year, on month it changes the
  month, on day it changes the day, on hour it changes the hour, on
  minute it changes the minutes (in 5 minutes steps). On the
  bracket, it changes the type.

I really do not intend to offend you but you should simply position
your cursor more carefully since changing timestamps simply is
related to that position as described above.

Or maybe there is a variable which could deactivate timestamp type
change behavior in general.

You might be right with «Toggle between active and inactive
timestamp in CLOCK line does not make sense» but I do think that
«the toggle mechanism to change timestamp type behaves consistently
everywhere» is more important here.

-- 
Karl Voit

Re: Toggle between active and inactive timestamp in CLOCK line does not make sense

[Gregor Zattler]

Hi Karl, Reiner, org-mode users and developers,
* Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> [26. Jun. 2012]:
> You might be right with «Toggle between active and inactive
> timestamp in CLOCK line does not make sense» but I do think that
> «the toggle mechanism to change timestamp type behaves consistently
> everywhere» is more important here.

But org-mode already has context-sensitive key bindings in
various places, especially C-c C-c.  Why is this different?

Ciao, Gregor
-- 
 -... --- .-. . -.. ..--.. ...-.-

Re: Toggle between active and inactive timestamp in CLOCK line does not make sense

[Karl Voit]

* Gregor Zattler <telegraph@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi Karl, Reiner, org-mode users and developers,
> * Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> [26. Jun. 2012]:
>> You might be right with «Toggle between active and inactive
>> timestamp in CLOCK line does not make sense» but I do think that
>> «the toggle mechanism to change timestamp type behaves consistently
>> everywhere» is more important here.
>
> But org-mode already has context-sensitive key bindings in
> various places, especially C-c C-c.  Why is this different?

Because it is not obvious that S-up/down is deactivated only in a
CLOCK line on timestamps. At least for me.

C-c C-c is consistent on its places. It is obvious that when you are
using C-c C-c in a table, it is unlikely that this action results in
adding tags as it does when invoked on a heading line. For example.

For the sake of being consistent, S-up/down should toggle the type
when invoked on a bracket of *every* timestamp. And not "it toggles
the timestamp type *except* in following cases ...".

I could imagine justified a discussion on that topic with a good
reason. But the only reason Reiner gave was that he does not want to
put his cursor on the (consistent) correct spot. In my opinion this
argument is is to weak to throw away consistency.

But I might be overruled or convinced by a lot of other people
arguing for the same change. I do not use clocking by my own (so
far) and therefore I really do not care if timestamp toggling
behaves differently when being in a CLOCK line. But I am concerned
by the general tendency that would start, when Org-mode becomes
indeterministic to the users on other places as well. <exaggeration>
... and this just because somebody is too lazy to put the cursor
where it should go </exaggeration> :-) (no offense!)

-- 
Karl Voit