Hello, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
> Hello, > > Michael Welle <mwe012...@gmx.net> writes: > >> 1. Property names like DISABLED-SCHEDULED seem to be problematic. I >> guess the regexp matching the scheduled property is too greedy. > > What exactly is problematic? Could you expound a bit? no, I can reproduce it today... My initial idea was to use something like that: (org-entry-put pom "DISABLED-SCHEDULED" "bar") But the created property was always named DISABLED-SCHED or DISABLED-SCHE I can't remember exactly how the regexp matching part was meant. I tried that a few times and every property with SCHEDULED in its name failed that way. Sorry for the noise. >> 2. (org-entry-put pom "SCHEDULED" nil) removes the property, but >> (org-entry-delete pom "SCHEDULED") doesn't. > > Fixed: `org-entry-delete' now deletes wrong "SCHEDULED" property. Thank > you. Thank you. > >> On the other hand, >> (org-entry-put pom "foo" nil) doesn't remove the property, but >> (org-entry-delete pom "foo") does. > > I don't see any problem here given the docstring of `org-entry-put'. No, there is no problem. I just wanted to point out, that o-e-p and o-e-d behave different, if fed with a well known property like SCHEDULE and a property like foo. I have no preference if (o-e-d pom "SCHEDULED") deletes the property (like it is now) or if (o-e-p pom "foo" nil) deletes the non well known properties. Regards hmw
