Alan Schmitt <alan.schm...@polytechnique.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.
It includes headlines with an inactive timestamp in the agenda. So if you have a property :REVIEW_DELAY: [Inactive timestamp] this headline will be show in the agenda if the timestamp matches. > (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?) Well... no. Of course you can simply use inactive timestamps and advice users not to include them in the agenda. > Yes. But I should think about it more to see where I could take > this. Thanks in advance! -- Bastien
