From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Matt Lundin <mdl@imapmail.org>
Subject: Re: proposal for enhanced org-get-priority function
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:11:46 -0500
Message-ID: <8739r22ht9.fsf@fastmail.fm>
References: <4CBF237F.1080602@gmail.com> <87aam34cy0.wl%dmaus@ictsoc.de>
	<4CC814B6.3070603@gmail.com> <4CCAB3D8.5010505@gmail.com>
	<4CCAB5C1.1080002@gmail.com>
	<5536343D-8741-46A9-8A81-849E141414A2@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33500 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PIA5N-00045H-U2
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:11:50 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lundin@fastmail.fm>) id 1PIA5M-0005xW-RA
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:11:49 -0500
Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:51786)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lundin@fastmail.fm>) id 1PIA5M-0005xS-PE
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:11:48 -0500
In-Reply-To: <5536343D-8741-46A9-8A81-849E141414A2@gmail.com> (Carsten
	Dominik's message of "Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:25:30 +0100")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>
Cc: David Maus <dmaus@ictsoc.de>, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, "I.S." <inquisitive.scientist@gmail.com>

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

> I would like to have a show of hands who is interested in this
> treatment of finer priorities.  Should we add this patch (I don't vote
> because I do not use priorities)

-1

Org-mode power users in need of finer-grained priority control already
have the option of widening the range of priorities with
org-highest-priority and org-lowest-priority or a #+PRIORITIES line. One
could also use custom "tags" + a user defined sorting command to
accomplish something similar.

I believe that, as a rule, if a peculiar use-case can already be
accomplished with current hooks and variables, a new way of doing the
same thing should not be hard-coded, unless it dramatically simplifies
the code and user experience.

- Matt