Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Yasushi SHOJI  writes:

> /tmp/a.org:
> * DONE org
>   DEADLINE: [2016-01-07 Thu 17:39]
>
>   SCHEDULED: <2015-09-29 Tue .+1w>

OK. I get it. Since SCHEDULED: keyword is misplaced, it is ignored.
However, the repeating time-stamp is not. Org really sees something
like,

    <2015-09-29 Tue .+1w>

which is equivalent to adding a plain time-stamp in the entry, and,
therefore, display it.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Yasushi SHOJI]

Hi Nicolas,

On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 20:24:31 +0900,
Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> 
> I cannot reproduce your problem? Could you try with -Q (and a minimal
> Org configuration)?

Hmm... That's what I did and got the following:

Week-agenda (W48):
Monday 28 November 2016 W48
  a:  DONE org
Tuesday29 November 2016
  a:  DONE org  
Wednesday  30 November 2016 
  a:  DONE org

Let me try again.

$ cd ~/src/org-mode
$ git describe
release_9.0.1-74-g3d80b35
$ make clean autoloads
$ ~/src/emacs25/src/emacs -Q -l /tmp/a.el -f 'org-agenda'

now I get

Week-agenda (W48):
Monday 28 November 2016 W48
Tuesday29 November 2016
  a:  DONE org
Wednesday  30 November 2016
Thursday1 December 2016
Friday  2 December 2016
Saturday3 December 2016
Sunday  4 December 2016

the commit 4b99ed5e seems to change the output a bit.  But I still get
the done entry.

I'm attaching those two files (just in case) but the contents are:

/tmp/a.el:
(add-to-list 'load-path "~/src/org-mode/lisp")
(setq org-agenda-files '("/tmp/a.org"))

/tmp/a.org:
* DONE org
  DEADLINE: [2016-01-07 Thu 17:39]

  SCHEDULED: <2015-09-29 Tue .+1w>

BTW, I'm on "GNU Emacs 25.1.90.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) of 2016-11-29", if it 
mutters.

$ cd ~/src/emacs25
$ git describe
emacs-24.5-rc3-fixed-8534-gf6da597

Let me know if you need any other info.

Thanks,
-- 
yashi
(add-to-list 'load-path "~/src/org-mode/lisp")
(setq org-agenda-files '("/tmp/a.org"))
* DONE org
  DEADLINE: [2016-01-07 Thu 17:39]

  SCHEDULED: <2015-09-29 Tue .+1w>

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Yasushi SHOJI  writes:

> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Sebastien Vauban 
> wrote:
>>
>> Yasushi SHOJI  writes:
>> >  >8  cut  >8 
>> > * DONE org
>> >   DEADLINE: [2016-01-07 Thu 17:39]
>> >
>> >   SCHEDULED: <2015-09-29 Tue .+1w>
>> >
>> >  >8  cut  >8 
>>
>> A shoot in the dark: replace the [] by <>.
>>
>> [] for DEADLINE does not make much sense...
>
> thanks for your comment.
> chainging the inactive timestamp to active doesn't seem
> to change the behavior.
>
> even with an inactive time stamp, it's not a good excuse
> to show a closed entry, isn't it?

I cannot reproduce your problem? Could you try with -Q (and a minimal
Org configuration)?

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Yasushi SHOJI]

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Sebastien Vauban 
wrote:
>
> Yasushi SHOJI  writes:
> >  >8  cut  >8 
> > * DONE org
> >   DEADLINE: [2016-01-07 Thu 17:39]
> >
> >   SCHEDULED: <2015-09-29 Tue .+1w>
> >
> >  >8  cut  >8 
>
> A shoot in the dark: replace the [] by <>.
>
> [] for DEADLINE does not make much sense...

thanks for your comment.
chainging the inactive timestamp to active doesn't seem
to change the behavior.

even with an inactive time stamp, it's not a good excuse
to show a closed entry, isn't it?
-- 
yashi

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Sebastien Vauban]

Yasushi SHOJI  writes:
> Alan Tyree wrote:
>>
>> Is this the way it should be? The first DEADLINE: shows up both as a
>> warning and on the due date in the agenda, but the second one does
>> not. It only works for me if the DEADLINE: is the first line after the
>> heading. Version 9, emacs 24
>>
>> *** test 1
>> DEADLINE: <2016-11-19 Sat>
>>
>> *** test 2
>>
>> DEADLINE: <2016-11-19 Sat>
>
> at release_9.0.1-47-gb062593 with the following org file, org-agenda
> shows the closed entry.  Is this also related?
>
> Yes, org-lint complains about the 4th "scheduled" line saying:
> "Misplaced planning info line", but isn't deadline planning info line?
> is any of planning info line not allowed in the body?
>
>  >8  cut  >8 
> * DONE org
>   DEADLINE: [2016-01-07 Thu 17:39]
>
>   SCHEDULED: <2015-09-29 Tue .+1w>
>
>  >8  cut  >8 

A shoot in the dark: replace the [] by <>.

[] for DEADLINE does not make much sense...

-- 
Sebastien Vauban

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Yasushi SHOJI]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 18:37:00 +0900,
Alan Tyree wrote:
>
> Is this the way it should be? The first DEADLINE: shows up both as a
> warning and on the due date in the agenda, but the second one does
> not. It only works for me if the DEADLINE: is the first line after the
> heading. Version 9, emacs 24
>
> *** test 1
> DEADLINE: <2016-11-19 Sat>
>
> *** test 2
>
> DEADLINE: <2016-11-19 Sat>

at release_9.0.1-47-gb062593 with the following org file, org-agenda
shows the closed entry.  Is this also related?

Yes, org-lint complains about the 4th "scheduled" line saying:
"Misplaced planning info line", but isn't deadline planning info line?
is any of planning info line not allowed in the body?

 >8  cut  >8 
* DONE org
  DEADLINE: [2016-01-07 Thu 17:39]

  SCHEDULED: <2015-09-29 Tue .+1w>

 >8  cut  >8 
; /tmp/a.el
(add-to-list 'load-path "~/src/org-mode/lisp")
(setq org-agenda-files '("/tmp/a.org"))

 >8  cut  >8 

$ emacs -Q -l /tmp/a.el -f 'org-agenda'
-- 
 yashi

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Alan Tyree]

On 11 November 2016 at 11:12, Nicolas Goaziou 
wrote:

> Alan Tyree  writes:
>
> > Will you please double check this? On my system, the entry does *not*
> show
> > up in the agenda (C-c a a). If I remove the DEADLINE:, then it does show
> > up. So, for the important purpose under discussion, the timestamp is
> > ignored.
>
> You are right, the timestamp was ignored, but that's a bug. I fixed it.
> Thank you.
>
> Regards,
>

Glad it is all cleared up. Thanks for a great piece of software!
Alan

-- 
Alan L Tyreehttp://austlii.edu.au/~alan

Tel:  04 2748 6206sip:typh...@iptel.org

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Alan Tyree  writes:

> Will you please double check this? On my system, the entry does *not* show
> up in the agenda (C-c a a). If I remove the DEADLINE:, then it does show
> up. So, for the important purpose under discussion, the timestamp is
> ignored.

You are right, the timestamp was ignored, but that's a bug. I fixed it.
Thank you.

Regards,

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Alan Tyree]

On 11 November 2016 at 02:08, Nicolas Goaziou 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Alan Tyree  writes:
>
> > Suggested wording:
> >
> > In 8.1:
> >
> >
> > timestamp can appear anywhere in the headline or body of an Org tree
> > entr UNLESS is is preceded by a keyword in which case it must be properly
> > positioned or it will be ignored: see 8.3 for details.
>
> This is wrong. Only the keyword is ignored, not the timestamp. This is
> why DEADLINE and SCHEDULED location is unrelated to section 8.1.
>

Hi Nicolas,
Will you please double check this? On my system, the entry does *not* show
up in the agenda (C-c a a). If I remove the DEADLINE:, then it does show
up. So, for the important purpose under discussion, the timestamp is
ignored.

Emacs version 24.4.1 on Debian Stable

org-version: Org mode version 9.0 (9.0-elpaplus @
/home/alant/.emacs.d/elpa/org-plus-contrib-20161102/)




>
> > A timestamp may be preceded by special keywords to facilitate planning.
> > WARNING: both the timestamp and the keyword are ignored if not positioned
> > immediately following the headline. No space or other text is allowed.
>
> I think "immediately following the headline" is unambiguous. No need to
> specify "no space or other text is allowed".
>
> I modified section 8.3 accordingly.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Subject to the above, OK. Just so long as there is a good strong warning
about it.

Thanks,
Alan

Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas Goaziou
>



-- 
Alan L Tyreehttp://austlii.edu.au/~alan

Tel:  04 2748 6206sip:typh...@iptel.org

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Alan Tyree  writes:

> Suggested wording:
>
> In 8.1:
>
>
> timestamp can appear anywhere in the headline or body of an Org tree
> entr UNLESS is is preceded by a keyword in which case it must be properly
> positioned or it will be ignored: see 8.3 for details.

This is wrong. Only the keyword is ignored, not the timestamp. This is
why DEADLINE and SCHEDULED location is unrelated to section 8.1.

> A timestamp may be preceded by special keywords to facilitate planning.
> WARNING: both the timestamp and the keyword are ignored if not positioned
> immediately following the headline. No space or other text is allowed.

I think "immediately following the headline" is unambiguous. No need to
specify "no space or other text is allowed".

I modified section 8.3 accordingly.

WDYT?

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Alan Tyree]

On 10 November 2016 at 10:47, Samuel Wales  wrote:

> iirc we've discussed whether planning lines (i.e. scheduled, deadline,
> closed at this time) should be flexible.  we concluded to make them
> strict.
>
> check archives for the discussion.  :) everything goes through this
> mailing list.
>
> OK, I'll accept that and have a look at the rationale. However, since
DEADLINE: is so terribly important, I think that there should be a
prominent warning in the manual that they are simply ignored if not
positioned correctly. Warnings should appear, at the very least, in 8.1 and
8.3.

Suggested wording:

In 8.1:


timestamp can appear anywhere in the headline or body of an Org tree
entr UNLESS is is preceded by a keyword in which case it must be properly
positioned or it will be ignored: see 8.3 for details.

In 8.3:

A timestamp may be preceded by special keywords to facilitate planning.
WARNING: both the timestamp and the keyword are ignored if not positioned
immediately following the headline. No space or other text is allowed.

Regards,
Alan


> --
> The Kafka Pandemic: http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com
>
> The disease DOES progress.  MANY people have died from it.  And
> ANYBODY can get it.
>
> Denmark: free Karina Hansen NOW.
>   UPDATE 2016-10: home, but not fully free
>



-- 
Alan L Tyreehttp://austlii.edu.au/~alan

Tel:  04 2748 6206sip:typh...@iptel.org

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Samuel Wales]

iirc we've discussed whether planning lines (i.e. scheduled, deadline,
closed at this time) should be flexible.  we concluded to make them
strict.

check archives for the discussion.  :) everything goes through this
mailing list.

-- 
The Kafka Pandemic: http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com

The disease DOES progress.  MANY people have died from it.  And
ANYBODY can get it.

Denmark: free Karina Hansen NOW.
  UPDATE 2016-10: home, but not fully free

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Alan Tyree]

On 10 November 2016 at 10:36, Nicolas Goaziou 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Alan L Tyree  writes:
>
> > On 10/11/16 05:51, Philip Hudson wrote:
>
> > Also, if this really is the case, then the manual needs to be
> > modified. Under 8.1, it says
> >
> > " A timestamp can appear anywhere in the headline or body of an Org tree
> > entry."
>
> Section 8.1 is about regular time-stamps, which are not necessarily tied
> to DEADLINE and SCHEDULED keyword. Therefore, the sentence above is
> true.
>
> > and under 8.3:
> >
> > "A timestamp may be preceded by special keywords to facilitate planning:"
> >
> > I can't see anywhere that requires the DEADLINE: keyword to be flush
> > against a heading.
>
> This is in 8.3.1, first footnote.
>
> So it is. Not exactly prominent :-). I still think the manual is
misleading, and is there some reason that "planning" items are treated
different from plain old appointment timestamps? I just seems (to a
non-programmer) to be an unnecessary restriction.

Cheers,
Alan


> Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas Goaziou
>



-- 
Alan L Tyreehttp://austlii.edu.au/~alan

Tel:  04 2748 6206sip:typh...@iptel.org

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Alan L Tyree  writes:

> On 10/11/16 05:51, Philip Hudson wrote:

> Also, if this really is the case, then the manual needs to be
> modified. Under 8.1, it says
>
> " A timestamp can appear anywhere in the headline or body of an Org tree
> entry."

Section 8.1 is about regular time-stamps, which are not necessarily tied
to DEADLINE and SCHEDULED keyword. Therefore, the sentence above is
true.

> and under 8.3:
>
> "A timestamp may be preceded by special keywords to facilitate planning:"
>
> I can't see anywhere that requires the DEADLINE: keyword to be flush
> against a heading.

This is in 8.3.1, first footnote.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Philip Hudson  writes:

> On 9 November 2016 at 14:20, Marco Wahl  wrote:
>> In particular, no blank line is allowed between PLANNING and HEADLINE.
>
> I just checked, and was surprised to find that M-x org-lint RET does
> *not* catch this. Is this a bug in org-lint, or does org-lint not
> intend to catch this sort of thing?

It was a bug in the parser, which was more tolerant than necessary. This
is fixed.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Alan L Tyree]

On 10/11/16 05:51, Philip Hudson wrote:

On 9 November 2016 at 14:20, Marco Wahl  wrote:

 In particular, no blank line is allowed between PLANNING and HEADLINE.

I just checked, and was surprised to find that M-x org-lint RET does
*not* catch this. Is this a bug in org-lint, or does org-lint not
intend to catch this sort of thing?


Also, if this really is the case, then the manual needs to be modified. 
Under 8.1, it says


" A timestamp can appear anywhere in the headline or body of an Org tree
entry."

and under 8.3:

"A timestamp may be preceded by special keywords to facilitate planning:"

I can't see anywhere that requires the DEADLINE: keyword to be flush 
against a heading.


There may be some reason for requiring this, but if there is no good 
reason, I would like to see it changed to be more flexible.


Alan


--
Alan L Tyreehttp://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel:  04 2748 6206  sip:typh...@iptel.org

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Philip Hudson]

On 9 November 2016 at 14:20, Marco Wahl  wrote:
> In particular, no blank line is allowed between PLANNING and HEADLINE.

I just checked, and was surprised to find that M-x org-lint RET does
*not* catch this. Is this a bug in org-lint, or does org-lint not
intend to catch this sort of thing?


-- 
Phil Hudson  http://hudson-it.ddns.net
Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) ID: 0x887DCA63

Re: [O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Marco Wahl]

Hi!

Alan Tyree  writes:

> Is this the way it should be? The first DEADLINE: shows up both as a
> warning and on the due date in the agenda, but the second one does not. It
> only works for me if the DEADLINE: is the first line after the heading.
> Version 9, emacs 24
>
> *** test 1
> DEADLINE: <2016-11-19 Sat>
>
> *** test 2
>
> DEADLINE: <2016-11-19 Sat>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Alan

Currently

http://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html

says:

 A planning is an element with the following pattern:

HEADLINE
PLANNING

(and DEADLINE is e.g. a PLANNING)

...

In particular, no blank line is allowed between PLANNING and HEADLINE. 

So your example 'test 2' does not have a DEADLINE according to the
org-syntax document.


Ciao,
-- 
Marco

[O] DEADLINE: position in entry

[Alan Tyree]

Is this the way it should be? The first DEADLINE: shows up both as a
warning and on the due date in the agenda, but the second one does not. It
only works for me if the DEADLINE: is the first line after the heading.
Version 9, emacs 24

*** test 1
DEADLINE: <2016-11-19 Sat>

*** test 2

DEADLINE: <2016-11-19 Sat>


Thanks,
Alan


-- 
Alan L Tyreehttp://austlii.edu.au/~alan

Tel:  04 2748 6206sip:typh...@iptel.org