From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SW Subject: Re: Yearly repeats on the agenda Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:40:37 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1890.1334665342@alphaville> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36007) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SK7iN-0007Sh-6b for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:41:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SK7iG-0002hs-Gp for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:40:58 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:47366) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SK7iG-0002hj-A0 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:40:52 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SK7iC-0004o1-1F for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:40:48 +0200 Received: from ss1.wits.ac.za ([146.141.1.91]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:40:48 +0200 Received: from sabrewolfy by ss1.wits.ac.za with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:40:48 +0200 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Nick Dokos hp.com> writes: > Indeed - I can reproduce that. It happens in org-agenda-get-timestamps, > in the call to org-agenda-format-item: this function takes a regexp > argument, remove-re, and removes any matches from the string it > produces. The regexp is constructed from the *current* date though: > > (concat > (regexp-quote > (format-time-string > "<%Y-%m-%d" > (encode-time 0 0 0 (nth 1 date) (nth 0 date) (nth 2 date)))) > ".*?>") > > so it becomes "<2012-04-17.*?>". Hence it removes the date in the third > example above, but not in the other two. > > The question is whether this is intended or not: personally, I don't see > any reason for the difference in behavior, so it might be a good idea to > generalize the regexp to match *any* year. > > Nick Thanks for the reply. Do I need to file this as a bug, or does this thread constitute a bug report? I'm behind a firewall/proxy and haven't setup email in Emacs, so I would just copy and paste the message from org-submit-bug-report and email it? I'm not (yet) an elisp-er, so I can't fix this myself.