Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > Hello, > > Samuel Wales <samolog...@gmail.com> writes: > >> commented repeater cookies does not have any of the above drawbacks. >> it might require a 3rd party tool to update its re if that tool uses >> repeaters. this is not unprecedented. the inactive repeater feature >> might already require a 3rd party tool to update its re. >> >> so upon reflection i think i'd go for commentable repeater cookies. >> it has a bonus too: whenever you turn off a repeater, it can be >> annoying that it zeroes out the interval. commenting would fix that. >> >> perhaps there is a better, unmentioned solution? > > I think commented repeaters add unnecessary overhead to the already > loaded timestamp syntax. This is, IMO, not a common enough need to > warrant even a minor syntax change. > > However, we still need to move forward. So, I suggest to revert the > change about inactive timestamps. Inactive timestamps cannot be > repeated. This is less disruptive than the current situation.
yes, agreed. > However, I also suggest to add a new hook, run after repeating > timestamps. With this hook, and a proper, user-specific, markup, it > should be possible to pick inactive timestamps in the section and > "repeat" them manually, i.e., on a case-by-case basis. another (maybe crazy) idea is to advise org-auto-repeat-maybe and set org-repeat-re as needed before it gets called. regards, -cm
