Re: next-error for agenda searches

[Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com>]

[as an example, i should not have brought up the follow mode example
at all.  it seems to have only confused readers.  i was trying to
forestall any suggestions that follow-mode exists and can do the job
that next-error can is all.  it can't do the same job.]

On 12/19/21, Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/19/21, Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> wrote:
>> multiple agenda views is not an uncommon workflow. You may have daily
>
> i think this is a strong objection.  multiple simultaneous agenda
> views seems to sink my suggestion.
>
> can one have multiple simultaneous c-c / buffers?  and multiple
> grep/occur/compilation shell minor mode?
>
> or a grep buffer and an occur buffer and a compilation shell minor
> mode buffer simultaneously?  what disambiguates those?
>
> idk what is done in such cases.  perhaps there is an assumption of a
> single set of errors at a time, or some buffer local thing.
>
>> etc. It would be unclear which agenda view to use when you call
>> next-error. Last generated? Last visited? What about agenda filters?
>> Dimmed tasks?
>
> yes, good points, if you mean separate agendas.  [else filters
> honored; dimmed presumably not skipped by default.]
>
>>
>>> furthermore, the next-closest thing, follow mode, puts point in wrong
>>> window.  also, 'canonical visibility is not present so i cannot see
>>> everything [this might or might not be fixable by user].
>>
>> Can you elaborate?
>
> well it is moot because of the accessibility issue, but it is
> unsuitable for the next-error task.  point in wrong window so you have
> to switch.  some things hidden so you have to make visible is all i
> meant.  again, moot so no suggestions needed here.
>
>>> also there is an accessibility issue with it.  i use large fonts so 2
>>> windows do not show much.  i use 2 windows only for very rare
>>> completion or selecting purposes.  not usable here.
>>
>> I also use relatively large fonts, though I do have space for two
>> windows (but not more). Note that there is org-agenda-entry-text-mode.
>
> indeed that shows text.  not editable directly in the real buffer, so
> not like next-error.  not useful for me in practice but nice.
>
> the next-error idea is for consistency with other parts of emacs.
> your multiple simultaneous agenda problem might nix it, dunno.
>
>> Might be useful. Also, I personally prefer org-quickpeek in agenda.
>
> can't seem to find that package but next-error allows editing not just
> peeking.
>
>> This sounds like you could use more tight search criteria or custom
>> agenda searches. An example of irrelevant vs. relevant information could
>> help us to suggest something for you.
>
> appreciate the offfer but pretty ure nobody can help here.  i am also
> limited in computer use and the back and forth is an issue.  i would
> not be able to describe the poroblems in sufficient detail, there
> would be further questions, i'd have to respond, etc.
>
> but basically i have had org for a long time and i am not able to
> maintain my forest as well as i need to.
>
> but it was just one point of many.  help here would in most cases
> likely be smething i have already thought of.  appreciates the offer.
>
> next-error is a sort of general tool.  it is not just for this purpose
> and compilation errors.  imo at least.  that is why c-c / uses it.
>
>>
>>> next-error would help me traverse and trim it rapidly.  i could
>>> perhaps create a kb macro to emulate it, but i haven't tried yet.
>>> then again, one could do so for grep mode etc. also.  :]
>>
>> If you decide to go with macro, it should not be too hard. Just <RET> on
>> agenda item, do your edits, macro-beg, switch to agenda buffer,
>> next-line, <RET>, macro-end
>
> yes :) [and doing soething to create canonical visibility at point so
> that everything relevant is visible, and setting line in window].
>
> [and finding that kb macro to lisp package and binding the command and
> possibly overloading the next-error bindings.]
>
>>
>> Best,
>> Ihor
>>
>>
>
> my suggestion was for org's sake and i didn't think this much detail
> would be needed at the time.  i used my computer use time to do the
> best i could, but it seems that more detail was needed, and that
> detail needed discussion.  my bad.
>
> n.b.  i've been on the list for years, and many core features of org,
> and parts thereof, were actually... my suggestions :).
>
> but sometimes i miss the mark apparently, especially lately.  as in this
> case.
>
> still, not sure why multiple grep buffers or grep with occur or c-c /,
> etc. are compatible but multiple simultaneous agenda not so.
>
> --
> The Kafka Pandemic
>
> A blog about science, health, human rights, and misopathy:
> https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com
>


-- 
The Kafka Pandemic

A blog about science, health, human rights, and misopathy:
https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com