Re: Bug: "SCHEDULED: " positioning is fragile [7.8.06 (release_7.8.06.181.ga481)]

[Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com>]

on Mon Apr 09 2012, Bastien <bzg-AT-altern.org> wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>
> Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> writes:
>
>> Sorry, but I don't want to spend the time on that.  I'm trying to get
>> the rules changed so that it isn't so easy to corrupt an org file.  
>
> The current rule is "Leave SCHEDULED: and DEADLINE: information where
> Org's `org-schedule' and `org-deadline' put it."
>
> Maybe I don't understand how do you want to change this rule.

I want the rule to be that you can have as much body text as you want
between the headline and the SCHEDULED: line.  Or failing that, I'd like
org's default keybindings to make it really hard to insert text between
the headline and SCHEDULED:.  Any typing in that area should, by
default, force the point to jump after SCHEDULED:

>> I sincerely hope that when you become clearer about such cases you pick
>> a liberal set of rules that isn't so error-prone.  The ideas that I
>> can't just hit return after a headline and start typing a body, and that
>> I'll be nagged about misplaced SCHEDULED: lines, are both very
>> unappealing.
>
> I have just added this hack:
>
>   "Check for misplaced SCHEDULED and DEADLINE cookies"
>   http://orgmode.org/worg/org-hacks.html#sec-1-2-8
>
> Here is the function:
>
> (defun org-check-misformatted-subtree ()
>   "Check misformatted entries in the current buffer."
>   (interactive)
>   (show-all)
>   (org-map-entries
>    (lambda ()
>      (move-beginning-of-line 2)
>      (if (or (and (org-get-scheduled-time (point))
>                   (not (looking-at (concat "^.*" org-scheduled-regexp))))
>              (and (org-get-deadline-time (point))
>                   (not (looking-at (concat "^.*" org-deadline-regexp)))))
>          (when (y-or-n-p "Fix this subtree? ")
>            (message "Call the function again when you're done fixing this subtree.")
>            (recursive-edit))
>        (message "All subtrees checked.")))))

Thanks, I think... but I can't tell if everybody is missing my point.
I've been trying to argue for something that doesn't allow mistakes to
happen in the first place.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com