John Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks, I'm trying this out and am liking it. I'll be installing it
> shortly. A couple of things came to mind, maybe they are
> improvements.
>
> Should we really be removing the dots from the date stamp? It seems
> more consistent with expected Planner behavior to leave them in the
> usual Planner date format, because then they will be automatically
> turned into links.
I didn't want a link because I wanted to keep the time stamp as
inobtrusive as possible and because I couldn't see how such a link
would be useful.
> I think I would prefer it this way, so maybe we could at least have
> an option allowing this. I think what might make the most sense is
> to have a customizable format string for the timestamp, and to use
> the typical emacs date/time functions to get the time for the stamp,
> rather than planner-today. This would make it a little harder to see
> if the task already has a timestamp, but we could just match on the
> {{key:.*}} instead.
Both suggestions seem very reasonable.
> The way it is now, the timestamp is affected by planner-timewarp,
> and I'm not sure how I feel about that.
I've not used planner-timewarp so I don't understand. I used
planner-today because it was there.
> With the timestamping code that I'd written previously, I had the
> timestamp at the beginning of the task description, and I liked this
> because then it would affect the sorting order. It provided an easy
> way to make sure that things that had been lingering for a while
> stayed at the top. Any thoughts about that possibility?
>
Could be another option? Another idea is to create a task sorting
function that uses the time stamps if available.
Best,
+ seth
_______________________________________________
Planner-el-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/planner-el-discuss
