Re: org-entry-delete vs org-entry-put

[Michael Welle <mwe012008@gmx.net>]

Hello,

Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Michael Welle <mwe012008@gmx.net> writes:
>
>> 1. Property names like DISABLED-SCHEDULED seem to be problematic. I
>>    guess the regexp matching the scheduled property is too greedy.
>
> What exactly is problematic? Could you expound a bit?
no, I can reproduce it today... My initial idea was to use something
like that: 

(org-entry-put pom "DISABLED-SCHEDULED" "bar")

But the created property was always named DISABLED-SCHED or DISABLED-SCHE
I can't remember exactly how the regexp matching part was meant. I tried
that a few times and every property with SCHEDULED in its name failed
that way. Sorry for the noise. 


>> 2. (org-entry-put pom "SCHEDULED" nil) removes the property, but
>>    (org-entry-delete pom "SCHEDULED")  doesn't.
>
> Fixed: `org-entry-delete' now deletes wrong "SCHEDULED" property. Thank
> you.
Thank you.


>
>>    On the other hand,   
>>    (org-entry-put pom "foo" nil) doesn't remove the property, but
>>    (org-entry-delete pom "foo")  does.
>
> I don't see any problem here given the docstring of `org-entry-put'.
No, there is no problem. I just wanted to point out, that o-e-p and
o-e-d behave different, if fed with a well known property like SCHEDULE
and a property like foo. I have no preference if (o-e-d pom "SCHEDULED")
deletes the property (like it is now) or if (o-e-p pom "foo" nil)
deletes the non well known properties. 

Regards
hmw