Re: proposal for enhanced org-get-priority function

[Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>]

Hi I.S.

I have not added you patch as it is, because in some ways the syntax  
it adds is
questionable, and, as others have pointed out, sorting can be done in  
different ways, too.

However, instead, I have introduced a variable that can be set to a  
user-defined function to compute the base priority of a node.  So you  
can simply put your function into that variable and continue to use  
your special syntax, with us making it an official Org syntax.

The name of the variable is org-get-priority-function.

I hope this helps.

- Carsten

On Nov 15, 2010, at 7:05 PM, I.S. wrote:

> On 11/15/2010 7:07 AM, Juan Pechiar wrote:
>> I'm against feature-itis.
>>
>> Orgmode has been losing some of its elegance to feature requests. And
>> by 'elegance' I mean ease of learning and using and maintaining, and
>> not having to decide between N different ways of achieving something
>> just because so many border-case features exist.
>>
>> The agenda is for things you have to do today. Just do them.
>>
>> If you need ordering, you have outlines and lists, properties, LISP,
>> hooks, column view, custom agenda views, etc.
>>
>> Regards,
>> .j.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:25:30AM +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>>> I would like to have a show of hands who is interested in this
>>> treatment of finer priorities.
> That may be a fair point (although I tend to think that most of the  
> features in orgmode are really useful). I'd like to point out,  
> however, that the proposed change is completely backward compatible.  
> If you don't want finer grained priorities, just don't add -<NUM>.
>
> Personally, I vote yes because I find the priorities in TODO lists  
> very useful. In addition, I often find that I want to insert a new  
> item between two existing ones and therefore having fine-grained  
> priorities makes this easy to do.
>
> -- 
> Thanks,
> -I.S.
>

- Carsten