Re: table bug and SCHEDULED: issue

[Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl>]

On Nov 20, 2006, at 17:49, Eddward DeVilla wrote:

> Hi,
>
>    I don't know if I'd call it a bug or not, but I think the behavior
> of SCHEDULED: in a table changed.  I'm still working on adding
> SCHEDULED: to my mad little method of organizing work.  I believe in a
> previous version of org-mode I was able to have a table lie the
> following and have the containing todo item show up in the week-agenda
> view.
>
> * quick info
>  |------------+------------------|
>  | Blah       | Blah blah        |
>  | SCHEDULED: | <2006-11-02 Thu> |
>  | DEADLINE:  |                  |
>  |------------+------------------|
>
> Now this does not show up in the week-agenda.  Honestly, I was
> surprised when it did work, and on the off chance it is supposed to,
> well it doesn't now.  If the ability to say 'SCHEDULED: <start>-<end>'
> were to be added as mentioned recently, such that it on the agenda on
> day <start> and overdue if not done by <end>, I would be just as
> pleased to use that outside of my quick info table.

Well, there is possibility that this might have worked, but I am not 
convinced.
For me, if I use this file, I do get an entry "quick info" on November 
2 in
my agenda, I don't understand why you don't.  The reason why it is in 
the agenda is the naked time stamp, and has nothing to do with the 
SCHEDULED keyword.  Thats why this entry shows up only on the day and 
is not forwarded like a scheduled item would be.

Why are you not using:

* quick info
  |-----------------------------|
  | Blah Blah blah              |
  | SCHEDULED: <2006-11-02 Thu> |
  | DEADLINE:                   |
  |-----------------------------|

then this item would really be scheduled for this date.

>
> Second, while testing this, I found that if I backspace over the pipe
> character between SCHEDULED: and the date and then do an undo, the
> pipe character is not restored.  I'm guessing the optimized table
> editor is involved some how.  It isn't a big problem me or anything,
> but I thought I'd mention it.

This one I cannot reproduce.  Anyone?

- Carsten