Re: bug? org does not seem to sort by prioritiy #A, #B, #C, #D

[Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>]

On Oct 21, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Rainer Stengele wrote:

> Am 21.10.2010 09:39, schrieb Carsten Dominik:
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Rainer Stengele wrote:
>>
>>> Am 21.10.2010 09:21, schrieb Carsten Dominik:
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Rainer Stengele wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 21.10.2010 09:07, schrieb Carsten Dominik:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Rainer Stengele wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> maybe this is a bug: (Org-mode version 7.01trans  
>>>>>>> (release_7.01h.605.gc540)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Having set
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> ================================================================
>>>>>>> Org Enable Priority Commands: Hide Value Toggle  on (non-nil)
>>>>>>> State: STANDARD.
>>>>>>> Non-nil means priority commands are active. Hide Rest
>>>>>>> When nil, these commands will be disabled, so that you never  
>>>>>>> accidentally
>>>>>>> set a priority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Org Highest Priority: Hide Value A
>>>>>>> State: STANDARD.
>>>>>>> The highest priority of TODO items.  A character like ?A, ?B  
>>>>>>> etc. More
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Org Lowest Priority: Hide Value D
>>>>>>> State: SAVED and set.
>>>>>>> The lowest priority of TODO items.  A character like ?A, ?B  
>>>>>>> etc. More
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Org Default Priority: Hide Value D
>>>>>>> State: SAVED and set.
>>>>>>> The default priority of TODO items. More
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> resulting correctly in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (custom-set-variables
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> '(org-highest-priority 65)
>>>>>>> '(org-default-priority 68)
>>>>>>> '(org-lowest-priority 68)
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> = 
>>>>>>> ================================================================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the custom agenda command
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  ("Tp" "all todos sorted by prio"
>>>>>>>   (
>>>>>>>    (alltodo "all todos" ))
>>>>>>>   ((org-agenda-sorting-strategy '(priority-down))))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> will sort correctly by priorities #A, #B, #C, descending,
>>>>>>> but will then mix up the rest of the todos with "#D" or  
>>>>>>> without priority.
>>>>>>> "#D" does not seem to be included in the sorting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The meaning of the default priority is that tasks without a  
>>>>>> priority do have
>>>>>> the default priority.  If you need 4 priorities all higher than  
>>>>>> "normal tasks",
>>>>>> make E your lowest and default priority
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Carsten
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, works now. A bit counterintuitive, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> What would be the "intuitive" meaning of default priority then?
>>>>
>>>> - Carsten
>>> Well, I would have expected that if I define a priority #D as  
>>> lowest priority it is not excluded from sorting.
>>
>>
>> It *is* included in the sorting. All #D's come after the #A's,  
>> #B's, and #C's.  Only that "all #D's" includes all entries that  
>> have no specified priority.  Within each main priority, the precise  
>> order of the entries is determined by other
>> factors well, like if it is a deadline or an overdue scheduled  
>> item.....  That make the D's look random and the other not - but  
>> the same is going on everywhere.
>>
>> You can look at the computed priority (which is used for sorting)  
>> by pressing (I think) "P" on every item.
>>
>> Would you like to make a proposal for a paragraph in the manual to  
>> clarify this?  Or are you proposing to change how this works?
>>
>>
>>
>> - Carsten
>>
> My guessing is that a naive user (like me ...) does expect any  
> defined priority (like #D in this case) to have a higher priority  
> than a "non" priority item.

I see how that makes sense.  However, the other use case is this:

Use #A to make something higher priority.  Use #C to make it lower  
than any normal stuff.  All the rest mingles in #B.

So your proposal makes the assumption that any priority means more  
than no priority.

- Carsten