Re: resheduling from agenda buffer

[Richard G Riley <rileyrgdev@googlemail.com>]

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> "Egli Christian (KIRO 41)" <christian.egli@credit-suisse.com> writes:
>
>> I think the reason is the principle of least surprise. 
>
> Agreed. That's also why rescheduling should perhaps leave some
> persistent warning in the agenda buffer (as S-left/right does).
> I guess it would solve the issue Richard was concerned about.

Most 100% certainly. See the other reply. The S-<left,right>
functionality is spot on. As a noob I believe I am more likely to spot these
inconsistencies that established users. The other reply might have been
private so I include it below:

,----
| While I can understand that, it certainly surprises the user to try and
| reschedule a task that isn't really there. I would suggest that the only
| sensible and usable and consistent thing to do is to mark it as changed
| like with the S-<left,right> .. in this case it hilites the entry as
| changed but you can continue to work on it. And then refresh (r)
| obviously moves all tasks to their correct positions while leaving the
| cursor at the current/next line.
| 
| The functionality for S-<lft,right> is perfect.
`----