Re: [PATCH] capture: Fix handling of time range for :time-prompt

[Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com>]

Richard Lawrence writes:

> Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> writes:
>
>> Testing that against the cases in your initial report, I believe it
>> leads to the same results as your patch, so here's a cleaned-up version.
>
> I confirm that this cleaned up version works for me and gets the same
> results for my test cases. I think it should be applied (modulo one
> nitpick below). Are you willing to apply it, Kyle? I don't have commit
> rights myself.

Sure.  Thank you for testing it.

>> -		  (cond ((and (or (not (boundp 'org-time-was-given))
>> -				  (not org-time-was-given))
>> -			      (not (= (time-to-days prompt-time) (org-today))))
>> -			 ;; Use 00:00 when no time is given for another
[...]
>> +                  (if (and (or (not org-time-was-given))
>
> Nitpick: (or (not org-time-was-given)) is equivalent to (not org-time-was-given)

Eh, thanks for spotting my sloppy conversion.  Fixed, though I ended up
rearranging things a bit more to avoid unnecessary `not's that were in
the original code.

Pushed (3e64d3475).

> As for this:
>
>> The original change came in b61ff117b (org-capture.el:
>> Set a correct time value with file+datetree+prompt, 2012-09-24), and I
>> believe the related thread is
>> <https://orgmode.org/list/20120923194954.GE25237@boo.workgroup/T/#u>.
>
> Thanks for the reference to this thread. I would like to be able to do
> exactly what Gregor mentioned there:
>
> - be prompted when capturing for the date and time / time range of the
>   event/appointment.
> - record the event/appointment in a date tree under the date entered at
>   the prompt
> - have a timestamp with the full time information entered at the prompt
>   appear in the resulting heading
>
> In short: enter the full date and time information *once*, and use this
> both to place the entry in the datetree and to give it a timestamp.

This isn't functionality I use myself, so I'm not sure I have things
straight in my head, but, yeah, sounds reasonable.
>
> As far as I can tell, that is not fully possible today, even with this
> patch. The reason is that time *range* information entered at the prompt
> generated by :time-prompt gets thrown away. The reason for *that* is
> that org-read-date is called with t as its to-time argument (the second
> argument), so that the date is returned in Emacs' internal time
> representation, which doesn't represent ranges.

Hmm.  Is it really about the TO-TIME argument?  If org-read-date is
called with TO-TIME as nil, doesn't it still throw away the end of the
range?

  (let ((org-time-was-given nil)
        (org-end-time-was-given nil))
    (org-read-date nil nil nil "Date for tree entry:"))
  ;; enter "3pm-4pm" => "2021-02-01 15:00"

Or, actually, it stores the end in org-end-time-was-given, but it does
that regardless of the TO-TIME argument.

  ;; TO-TIME nil
  (let ((org-time-was-given nil)
        (org-end-time-was-given nil))
    (org-read-date nil nil nil "Date for tree entry:")
    org-end-time-was-given)
  ;; enter "3pm-4pm" => "16:00"

  ;; TO-TIME t
  (let ((org-time-was-given nil)
        (org-end-time-was-given nil))
    (org-read-date nil t nil "Date for tree entry:")
    org-end-time-was-given)
  ;; enter "3pm-4pm" => "16:00"

And the org-time-stamp command uses a non-nil TO-TIME, formatting the
time stamp with something like this:

  ;; org-time-stamp
  (let* ((org-time-was-given nil)
         (org-end-time-was-given nil))
    (org-insert-time-stamp
     (org-read-date nil t nil "Date for tree entry:")
     org-time-was-given
     nil nil nil
     (list org-end-time-was-given)))
  ;; enter "3pm-4pm" => "16:00" => <2021-02-01 Mon 15:00-16:00>

> Bastien's recommended solution back then was to use %^t and %^T in the
> capture template instead of %t and %T. The problem with that is that it
> requires entering the date twice: once at the prompt generated by
> :time-prompt, and once at the prompt to replace the %^T in the template.
>
> Could we instead save, say, :start-time and :end-time values in
> org-capture-plist after the :time-prompt, and use them to populate %T,
> %U, etc. in the template? This seems like the right solution to me, but
> it might require modifying org-read-date, which is a hairy piece of
> code. What do others think about this? Should I come up with a patch for
> this, or is there a different solution that the community and
> maintainers would prefer?

I don't have a good grasp of all the details here yet, but something in
that direction sounds worth considering to me.  And perhaps by carrying
along org-end-time-was-given, you won't need to modify org-read-date.

Thanks.