From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastien Vauban Subject: Re: Remove redundant tags of headlines Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 17:17:05 +0100 Message-ID: <86a9csn4am.fsf@somewhere.org> References: <864n32yust.fsf@somewhere.org> <871ty6qekt.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <86d2hpdnj6.fsf@somewhere.org> <87y50crg14.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <86lhwc4yb3.fsf@somewhere.org> <87bnx8re93.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87bnx8re93.fsf-E3UqQZAQFPqWIDz0JBNUog@public.gmane.org> (Bastien's message of "Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:28:24 +0100") 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-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org To: Bastien Cc: David Maus , public-emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ-wOFGN7rlS/M9smdsby/KFg@public.gmane.org Hi Bastien, >> ** TODO Project A :FLAGGED: >> *** TODO Task 1 :FLAGGED: >> >> Of course, "FLAGGED" is present in the headline but, at the same time, >> it is inherited. > > It means Org favors explicit tags over inherited ones when presenting > them through `org-entry-get'. Yes, that's what I thought. That makes sense. >> IIUC, the goal of the function written by David was to remove redundant >> tags. In the above case, "FLAGGED" should be removed from "Task 1" >> because it is superfluous (redundant with its parent entry). > > Can you find when David's function was still functional for you? No, and, honestly, I won't try, because I remember seeing that not functioning for a very long time, certainly well above 1=C2=A0year. And so many things changed in my config (Emacs, Org mode) and in Org mode, that I'm not sure at all to come back to a previously working state -- if it did [1]. >> I'd think that asking for all tags of "Task 1" should output both >> a local "FLAGGED" tag and an inherited "FLAGGED" one. > > Well, ALLTAGS means all distinct tags for me, and I don't see how > outputting all duplicate tags would be useful. Well, here, it would be useful that ALLTAGS would really report ALL TAGS... (even if it wasn't its default behavior) > You'll have to find another use-case than just David's function to > convince me :) Then, I won't. But such a cleaning (in `before-save-hook') is not possible, then? Best regards, Seb [1] I can't exclude that my mind would play me tricks. --=20 Sebastien Vauban