Hi Bastien, Thanks a lot for these, I'll look into them. I have a couple questions in the meantime.
On 2014-04-19 10:14, Bastien <b...@gnu.org> writes: > - maybe you can use "naked" timestamps like 2014-04-19 sam. > instead of inactive ones, this way using "[" in the agenda > will not create false positives by inserting entries with > a REVIEW property. OK. I'm not sure what "[" is supposed to do in the agenda, and I don't see how it could interfere. (I like inactive time stamps because I can easily adjust their dates with C-left and C-right, is it possible to do so with naked timestamps?) > - I infer from a quick read that this works for the agenda but > I guess this could work for both the agenda and Org buffers; Yes, clearly. > Since you took inspirationg from org-expiry, I guess some of > the comments above would apply there too... feel free to hack > into this directions for both org-expiry.el and org-review.el! > Actually, maybe both should be merged somehow, since expiring > is just reviewing entries to interactively delete them. Yes. But I should think about it more to see where I could take this. Thanks again, Alan
