"Jacob S. Gordon" <[email protected]> writes: > On 2026-06-21 10:20, Ihor Radchenko wrote: >> Whether current version is "wrong" mathematically or not does not >> matter. It does the job, even if it does not map priorities to the >> full available range. Our goal is not to map things mathematically >> correctly, but in ways useful for users. > > I don’t think dismissing it as ‘mathematical’ is correct, or even > useful. Non-mathematical users can appreciate symmetry, idempotence, > periodicity, etc. even if they can’t describe it that way. > ... >> The existing approach is working. > > Uh, sure. > > Cancelled, as I seem to be the only one who cares about this.
Sorry if you got a wrong impression about this. I do not reject you proposal. In fact, I do agree that a better mapping makes sense. Jack also agrees, although he proposed an alternative mapping. I then came and simply told "let's have all options as customization". However, do keep in mind that a lot of Emacs and Org users also appreciate stability. The existing approach, while less than ideal, is not completely wrong either. It is usable. And not everyone will appreciate non-critical improvements if they alter the existing behavior, potentially breaking custom user code written around it. IMHO, the improvement you propose does not justify changing the defaults. But it is completely acceptable as an alternative option. (There is always a tension in Emacs and Org about changing the defaults vs. improvements. The standard approach is being conservative, and not changing things unless absolutely necessary. I have some ideas in mind how to resolve this tension, but that would require either more free time on my side or someone helping me with implementation/patches.) -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode maintainer, Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>. Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>, or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
