commenting out a SCHEDULED line does not remove todo from agenda.

commenting out a SCHEDULED line does not remove todo from agenda.

[Rainer Stengele]

Hi!

Imagine you have a todo like this:

***** TODO a task
      SCHEDULED: <2013-01-16 Mi +2m>

Now suppose you want to put that todo on hold. In order to no more see
the scheduled date in the agenda I comment out the "SCHEDULED" line.
I do not want to delete it because I maybe need it later again:


***** TODO a task
      # SCHEDULED: <2013-01-16 Mi +2m>

The todo still appears in the agenda.
Is this not counterintuitive?

Rainer

Re: commenting out a SCHEDULED line does not remove todo from agenda.

[Markus Heller]

Rainer Stengele <rainer.stengele@online.de> writes:

> Hi!
>
> Imagine you have a todo like this:
>
> ***** TODO a task
>       SCHEDULED: <2013-01-16 Mi +2m>
>
> Now suppose you want to put that todo on hold. In order to no more see
> the scheduled date in the agenda I comment out the "SCHEDULED" line.
> I do not want to delete it because I maybe need it later again:
>
>
> ***** TODO a task
>       # SCHEDULED: <2013-01-16 Mi +2m>
>
> The todo still appears in the agenda.
> Is this not counterintuitive?

No, not IMHO.  You commented out the date on which you were scheduled to
start working on the task, but the task remains TODO.

What about changing the TODO state from TODO to WAITING?

Markus

Re: commenting out a SCHEDULED line does not remove todo from agenda.

[Rainer Stengele]

Am 16.01.2013 17:49, schrieb Markus Heller:
> Rainer Stengele <rainer.stengele@online.de> writes:
> 
>> Hi!
>>
>> Imagine you have a todo like this:
>>
>> ***** TODO a task
>>       SCHEDULED: <2013-01-16 Mi +2m>
>>
>> Now suppose you want to put that todo on hold. In order to no more see
>> the scheduled date in the agenda I comment out the "SCHEDULED" line.
>> I do not want to delete it because I maybe need it later again:
>>
>>
>> ***** TODO a task
>>       # SCHEDULED: <2013-01-16 Mi +2m>
>>
>> The todo still appears in the agenda.
>> Is this not counterintuitive?
> 
> No, not IMHO.  You commented out the date on which you were scheduled to
> start working on the task, but the task remains TODO.
> 
> What about changing the TODO state from TODO to WAITING?
> 
> Markus
> 
> 
> 
Markus,

I create the agenda for today.
Why do I see the todo although it is no more scheduled for today?

Rainer

Re: commenting out a SCHEDULED line does not remove todo from agenda.

[Markus Heller]

Rainer Stengele <rainer.stengele@online.de> writes:

> Am 16.01.2013 17:49, schrieb Markus Heller:
>> Rainer Stengele <rainer.stengele@online.de> writes:
>> 
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Imagine you have a todo like this:
>>>
>>> ***** TODO a task
>>>       SCHEDULED: <2013-01-16 Mi +2m>
>>>
>>> Now suppose you want to put that todo on hold. In order to no more see
>>> the scheduled date in the agenda I comment out the "SCHEDULED" line.
>>> I do not want to delete it because I maybe need it later again:
>>>
>>>
>>> ***** TODO a task
>>>       # SCHEDULED: <2013-01-16 Mi +2m>
>>>
>>> The todo still appears in the agenda.
>>> Is this not counterintuitive?
>> 
>> No, not IMHO.  You commented out the date on which you were scheduled to
>> start working on the task, but the task remains TODO.
>> 
>> What about changing the TODO state from TODO to WAITING?
>> 
>> Markus
>> 
>> 
>> 
> Markus,
>
> I create the agenda for today.
> Why do I see the todo although it is no more scheduled for today?

Ah, now I get it.

But this works for me, i.e. if I comment the SCHEDULED property out, the
task doesn't show up in the agenda.

M-x org-version: Org-mode version 7.9.2 (7.9.2-84-g89b8a8-elpa @ c:/Users/mheller/AppData/Roaming/.emacs.d/elpa/org-20121126/)

M-x emacs-version: GNU Emacs 24.1.1 (i386-mingw-nt6.1.7601) of 2012-06-10 on MARVIN

Markus

Re: commenting out a SCHEDULED line does not remove todo from agenda.

[Nick Dokos]

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

> Hi!
> 
> Imagine you have a todo like this:
> 
> ***** TODO a task
>       SCHEDULED: <2013-01-16 Mi +2m>
> 
> Now suppose you want to put that todo on hold. In order to no more see
> the scheduled date in the agenda I comment out the "SCHEDULED" line.
> I do not want to delete it because I maybe need it later again:
> 
> 
> ***** TODO a task
>       # SCHEDULED: <2013-01-16 Mi +2m>
> 
> The todo still appears in the agenda.
> Is this not counterintuitive?
> 

Try putting the # in column 1 (untested).

Nick

Re: commenting out a SCHEDULED line does not remove todo from agenda.

[Nick Dokos]

Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:

> Rainer Stengele <rainer.stengele@online.de> wrote:
> 
> > Hi!
> > 
> > Imagine you have a todo like this:
> > 
> > ***** TODO a task
> >       SCHEDULED: <2013-01-16 Mi +2m>
> > 
> > Now suppose you want to put that todo on hold. In order to no more see
> > the scheduled date in the agenda I comment out the "SCHEDULED" line.
> > I do not want to delete it because I maybe need it later again:
> > 
> > 
> > ***** TODO a task
> >       # SCHEDULED: <2013-01-16 Mi +2m>
> > 
> > The todo still appears in the agenda.
> > Is this not counterintuitive?
> > 
> 
> Try putting the # in column 1 (untested).
> 

I've now tested it and it is as I thought: the comment character has to
be in column 1. The reason is org-agenda-skip:

,----
| (defun org-agenda-skip ()
|   "Throw to `:skip' in places that should be skipped.
| Also moves point to the end of the skipped region, so that search can
| continue from there."
|   (let ((p (point-at-bol)) to)
|     (when (org-in-src-block-p t) (throw :skip t))
|     (and org-agenda-skip-archived-trees (not org-agenda-archives-mode)
| 	 (get-text-property p :org-archived)
| 	 (org-end-of-subtree t)
| 	 (throw :skip t))
|     (and org-agenda-skip-comment-trees
| 	 (get-text-property p :org-comment)
| 	 (org-end-of-subtree t)
| 	 (throw :skip t))
|     (if (equal (char-after p) ?#) (throw :skip t))
|     (when (setq to (or (org-agenda-skip-eval org-agenda-skip-function-global)
| 		       (org-agenda-skip-eval org-agenda-skip-function)))
|       (goto-char to)
|       (throw :skip t))))
`----

It sets p to the point at the beginning of the line and then
checks if the character after it is '#'. Only then does it skip
the entry.

Nick

Re: commenting out a SCHEDULED line does not remove todo from agenda.

[Carsten Dominik]

On 17.1.2013, at 06:02, Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:

> Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:
> 
>> Rainer Stengele <rainer.stengele@online.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi!
>>> 
>>> Imagine you have a todo like this:
>>> 
>>> ***** TODO a task
>>>      SCHEDULED: <2013-01-16 Mi +2m>
>>> 
>>> Now suppose you want to put that todo on hold. In order to no more see
>>> the scheduled date in the agenda I comment out the "SCHEDULED" line.
>>> I do not want to delete it because I maybe need it later again:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ***** TODO a task
>>>      # SCHEDULED: <2013-01-16 Mi +2m>
>>> 
>>> The todo still appears in the agenda.
>>> Is this not counterintuitive?
>>> 
>> 
>> Try putting the # in column 1 (untested).
>> 
> 
> I've now tested it and it is as I thought: the comment character has to
> be in column 1. The reason is org-agenda-skip:
> 
> ,----
> | (defun org-agenda-skip ()
> |   "Throw to `:skip' in places that should be skipped.
> | Also moves point to the end of the skipped region, so that search can
> | continue from there."
> |   (let ((p (point-at-bol)) to)
> |     (when (org-in-src-block-p t) (throw :skip t))
> |     (and org-agenda-skip-archived-trees (not org-agenda-archives-mode)
> | 	 (get-text-property p :org-archived)
> | 	 (org-end-of-subtree t)
> | 	 (throw :skip t))
> |     (and org-agenda-skip-comment-trees
> | 	 (get-text-property p :org-comment)
> | 	 (org-end-of-subtree t)
> | 	 (throw :skip t))
> |     (if (equal (char-after p) ?#) (throw :skip t))
> |     (when (setq to (or (org-agenda-skip-eval org-agenda-skip-function-global)
> | 		       (org-agenda-skip-eval org-agenda-skip-function)))
> |       (goto-char to)
> |       (throw :skip t))))
> `----
> 
> It sets p to the point at the beginning of the line and then
> checks if the character after it is '#'. Only then does it skip
> the entry.

And this is done for speed.  Maybe Moore's law has progressed enough to relax this assumption?

- Carsten


> 
> Nick
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: commenting out a SCHEDULED line does not remove todo from agenda.

[Nick Dokos]

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> On 17.1.2013, at 06:02, Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:
> 
> > ...
> > It sets p to the point at the beginning of the line and then
> > checks if the character after it is '#'. Only then does it skip
> > the entry.
> 
> And this is done for speed.  Maybe Moore's law has progressed enough to relax this assumption?
> 

For me, probably yes: my agenda is fairly simple. More complicated
agendas still seem to take a fairly substantial time to construct
however - Bastien spent considerable effort recently to speed up the
agenda and might look askance at any attempt to slow it down :-)

But actual numbers would carry more weight than any guesses I might
make.  Here is a (probably stupid) implementation of the generalized
mechanism.  In org-agenda-skip, replace

     (if (equal (char-after p) ?#) (throw :skip t))

with

     (save-excursion
      (goto-char p)
      (skip-chars-forward "[:blank:]")
      (if (equal (char-after) ?#) (throw :skip t)))

Assuming it's correct (and no better implementation is suggested), maybe
somebody with a time-consuming agenda can try profiling with and without
the generalized mechanism and let us know.

I tried with my agenda which calls org-agenda-skip 5768 times. Without
the mod, they took 0.13s; with the mod, they took 0.19s, so that's a 50%
increase - but the overall time was actually shorter in the second case:
1.64s vs 1.72s.  The data look noisy however (I only tried it once in
each case) so it's hard to say anything meaningful. I'd need to run many
more experiments before I'd trust these numbers.

Nick

Re: commenting out a SCHEDULED line does not remove todo from agenda.

[Rainer Stengele]

Am 17.01.2013 09:54, schrieb Nick Dokos:
> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> On 17.1.2013, at 06:02, Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> It sets p to the point at the beginning of the line and then
>>> checks if the character after it is '#'. Only then does it skip
>>> the entry.
>>
>> And this is done for speed.  Maybe Moore's law has progressed enough to relax this assumption?
>>
> 
> For me, probably yes: my agenda is fairly simple. More complicated
> agendas still seem to take a fairly substantial time to construct
> however - Bastien spent considerable effort recently to speed up the
> agenda and might look askance at any attempt to slow it down :-)
> 
> But actual numbers would carry more weight than any guesses I might
> make.  Here is a (probably stupid) implementation of the generalized
> mechanism.  In org-agenda-skip, replace
> 
>      (if (equal (char-after p) ?#) (throw :skip t))
> 
> with
> 
>      (save-excursion
>       (goto-char p)
>       (skip-chars-forward "[:blank:]")
>       (if (equal (char-after) ?#) (throw :skip t)))
> 
> Assuming it's correct (and no better implementation is suggested), maybe
> somebody with a time-consuming agenda can try profiling with and without
> the generalized mechanism and let us know.
> 
> I tried with my agenda which calls org-agenda-skip 5768 times. Without
> the mod, they took 0.13s; with the mod, they took 0.19s, so that's a 50%
> increase - but the overall time was actually shorter in the second case:
> 1.64s vs 1.72s.  The data look noisy however (I only tried it once in
> each case) so it's hard to say anything meaningful. I'd need to run many
> more experiments before I'd trust these numbers.
> 
> Nick


Hi,

setting '#" at bol works.
As my agenda was and is slow and only became faster after Bastiens
optimisations lately I do not want to motivate changes which makes the
agenda creation slower again. I am happy with setting a '#' at bol.

Thanks for investigating.

If I find time I will test your org-agenda-skip modifikation and measure
performance.

Rainer

Re: commenting out a SCHEDULED line does not remove todo from agenda.

[Carsten Dominik]

On 17.1.2013, at 09:54, Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:

> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 17.1.2013, at 06:02, Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> ...
>>> It sets p to the point at the beginning of the line and then
>>> checks if the character after it is '#'. Only then does it skip
>>> the entry.
>> 
>> And this is done for speed.  Maybe Moore's law has progressed enough to relax this assumption?
>> 
> 
> For me, probably yes: my agenda is fairly simple. More complicated
> agendas still seem to take a fairly substantial time to construct
> however - Bastien spent considerable effort recently to speed up the
> agenda and might look askance at any attempt to slow it down :-)
> 
> But actual numbers would carry more weight than any guesses I might
> make.  Here is a (probably stupid) implementation of the generalized
> mechanism.  In org-agenda-skip, replace
> 
>     (if (equal (char-after p) ?#) (throw :skip t))
> 
> with
> 
>     (save-excursion
>      (goto-char p)
>      (skip-chars-forward "[:blank:]")
>      (if (equal (char-after) ?#) (throw :skip t)))
> 
> Assuming it's correct (and no better implementation is suggested), maybe
> somebody with a time-consuming agenda can try profiling with and without
> the generalized mechanism and let us know.
> 
> I tried with my agenda which calls org-agenda-skip 5768 times. Without
> the mod, they took 0.13s; with the mod, they took 0.19s, so that's a 50%
> increase - but the overall time was actually shorter in the second case:
> 1.64s vs 1.72s.  

Did you have a number of commented SCHEDULED items in there, so that time was saved on those items?  Otherwise it would be hard to see why things should actually go faster.

- Carsten

> The data look noisy however (I only tried it once in
> each case) so it's hard to say anything meaningful. I'd need to run many
> more experiments before I'd trust these numbers.
> 
> Nick
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: commenting out a SCHEDULED line does not remove todo from agenda.

[Nick Dokos]

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> On 17.1.2013, at 09:54, Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:
> 
> > ... 
> > I tried with my agenda which calls org-agenda-skip 5768 times. Without
> > the mod, they took 0.13s; with the mod, they took 0.19s, so that's a 50%
> > increase - but the overall time was actually shorter in the second case:
> > 1.64s vs 1.72s.  
> 

> Did you have a number of commented SCHEDULED items in there, so that
> time was saved on those items?  Otherwise it would be hard to see why
> things should actually go faster.

No, I just ran it on my standard items which do not include any
commmented SCHEDULED items. It may have been just scheduling delays
because of all the *other* things running on my laptop, or there may
have been caching effects - or I may have screwed up. As I said, I would
have to do many more (and more careful) experiments before I'd trust
these numbers.

Nick

Re: commenting out a SCHEDULED line does not remove todo from agenda.

[Carsten Dominik]

On 17.1.2013, at 16:47, Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:

> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 17.1.2013, at 09:54, Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> ... 
>>> I tried with my agenda which calls org-agenda-skip 5768 times. Without
>>> the mod, they took 0.13s; with the mod, they took 0.19s, so that's a 50%
>>> increase - but the overall time was actually shorter in the second case:
>>> 1.64s vs 1.72s.  
>> 
> 
>> Did you have a number of commented SCHEDULED items in there, so that
>> time was saved on those items?  Otherwise it would be hard to see why
>> things should actually go faster.
> 
> No, I just ran it on my standard items which do not include any
> commmented SCHEDULED items. It may have been just scheduling delays
> because of all the *other* things running on my laptop, or there may
> have been caching effects - or I may have screwed up. As I said, I would
> have to do many more (and more careful) experiments before I'd trust
> these numbers.

OK, NIck, thanks for your reply.

- Carsten

> 
> Nick
> 

Re: commenting out a SCHEDULED line does not remove todo from agenda.

[Bastien]

Hi Rainer and all,

Rainer Stengele <rainer.stengele@online.de> writes:

> As my agenda was and is slow and only became faster after Bastiens
> optimisations lately I do not want to motivate changes which makes the
> agenda creation slower again. I am happy with setting a '#' at bol.

I fixed this.  The check is now done checking the text property
'font-lock-comment-face which is the one for such lines.  From the
tests I did, this is as fast as checking for the next character.

Please have a go and let me know if this work.

Best,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: commenting out a SCHEDULED line does not remove todo from agenda.

[Rainer Stengele]

Am 22.01.2013 16:43, schrieb Bastien:
> Hi Rainer and all,
> 
> Rainer Stengele <rainer.stengele@online.de> writes:
> 
>> As my agenda was and is slow and only became faster after Bastiens
>> optimisations lately I do not want to motivate changes which makes the
>> agenda creation slower again. I am happy with setting a '#' at bol.
> 
> I fixed this.  The check is now done checking the text property
> 'font-lock-comment-face which is the one for such lines.  From the
> tests I did, this is as fast as checking for the next character.
> 
> Please have a go and let me know if this work.
> 
> Best,
> 
Bastien, thanks a lot, works as expected!

Cheers,
Rainer