Thanks a lot - appreciate the feedback!
On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 23:38, Samuel Wales <samolog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if my opinion is worth anything [perhaps not much here :]], i like
> your proposals and the idea of being able to re-sort an existing
> agenda assuming that is your goal.
>
> i don't use any priority sorting except in user-customizable but it
> makes sense to decouple them for those who do. and i frequently want
> to differently sort an existing agenda view.
>
>
> On 12/22/20, Adam Spiers <orgm...@adamspiers.org> wrote:
> > Hi again,
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 02:20:53PM +0000, Adam Spiers wrote:
> >>Hi all,
> >>
> >>I'm currently working on adding a feature to org-agenda which allows
> >>manual ordering of entries in combination with the existing automatic
> >>ordering (as dictated by `org-agenda-sorting-strategy').
> >>
> >>During my investigations I noticed that while `org-get-priority' converts
> >>[#B] style cookies into a numeric priority which is a multiple of
> >>1000, further adjustments are made in functions like
> >>`org-agenda-get-scheduled' before adding this numeric priority as a
> >>text property on the entry:
> >>
> >> 'priority (if habitp (org-habit-get-priority habitp)
> >> (+ 99 diff (org-get-priority item)))
> >>
> >>In this case `diff' refers to the number of days between now and when
> >>the item was scheduled. A slightly different calculation is made in
> >>`org-agenda-get-timestamps':
> >>
> >> (org-add-props item props
> >> 'priority (if habit?
> >> (org-habit-get-priority (org-habit-parse-todo))
> >> (org-get-priority item))
> >>
> >>I further noticed that this overloading of the internal priority by
> >>including timestamp and habit data causes disruption to the behaviour
> >>I imagine most users would expect from `org-agenda-sorting-strategy'.
> >>For example, if you have `priority-down' as the first entry in the
> >>`agenda' section and `category-keep' as the second, then differences
> >>in the SCHEDULED timestamp are included in the priority calculation
> >>and can therefore prevent sorting of two adjacent [#B] items by
> >>category. This seems like a bug to me, or at least breaks the
> >>Principle of Least Surprise.
> >
> > [snipped]
> >
> >>Given that `org-agenda-sorting-strategy' now supports all manner of
> >>sorting criteria, many of which are time-sensitive, I would like to
> >>know if there is any reason not to remove this overloading of the
> >>priority calculation, i.e. decoupling it to depend purely on the
> >>result of `org-get-priority' and `org-habit-get-priority'?
> >>
> >>If fact, perhaps we could go one step further and add support for new
> >>habit-priority-{up,down} sorters to `org-agenda-sorting-strategy', so
> >>that the priority-{up,down} sorters sort purely by the priority cookie
> >>and nothing else?
> >
> > Gently bumping this as I didn't get any replies yet. I would like to
> > continue working on a solution, but obviously don't want to waste time
> > on something which would be rejected.
> >
> > If it is considered important to preserve the exact behaviour
> > currently offered by `org-agenda-sorting-strategy' then I would
> > propose the following:
> >
> > - Keep the existing priority-{up,down} which combine priority cookies
> > with timestamp data and the result from `org-habit-get-priority',
> > but probably also deprecate it and remove it from the default value.
> >
> > - Introduce new priority-cookie-{up,down} sorters which operate purely
> > on [#A] and [#1] style priority cookies and nothing else.
> >
> > This would facilitate decoupling of the sortable criteria whilst
> > remaining backwards compatible.
> >
> > Does this sound reasonable? I am keen to proceed very soon (ideally
> > over the Xmas break). I have already written some new ert tests for
> > `org-agenda-sorting-strategy' which would be included in any submitted
> > patches.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Adam
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> The Kafka Pandemic
>
> Please learn what misopathy is.
>
> https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-some-diseases-are-wronged.html
>
