From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Troxel Subject: Re: bug? org does not seem to sort by prioritiy #A, #B, #C, #D Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:41:22 -0400 Message-ID: References: <5018244D-6882-44E3-BE5A-F7ADFD68CA78@gmail.com> <4CBFE7D9.7060406@diplan.de> <8149C452-8C07-4458-AE99-73717076A134@gmail.com> <4CBFEC31.5060008@diplan.de> <4CBFFF5D.2010604@diplan.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1355215720==" Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35702 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P8uSW-0005wo-8X for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:41:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P8uSR-0006sf-Vp for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:41:28 -0400 Received: from fnord.ir.bbn.com ([192.1.100.210]:61071) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P8uSR-0006sF-T3 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:41:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Carsten Dominik's message of "Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:01:18 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Carsten Dominik Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Rainer Stengele --===============1355215720== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Carsten Dominik writes: > On Oct 21, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Rainer Stengele wrote: > >> 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. The default aBc settings were easily understandable to me and I use A to mark things high and C low and leave most things in the middle. So maybe all that's needed is a "You might expect tasks with an explicit priority to all be considered higher priority than tasks without an explicit priority, but in fact unlabeled tasks inherit the default priority." Or maybe that's redundant. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (NetBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkzANPIACgkQ+vesoDJhHiXtQQCgmbfdU85uhR/H+YVEqa/cx+5h idgAnjlBd15dY//eslsXFGPPtJCNosm1 =a4zW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- --===============1355215720== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode --===============1355215720==--