Re: [O] please read: bug when marking tasks done

[cesar mena]

Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Samuel Wales <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> commented repeater cookies does not have any of the above drawbacks.
>> it might require a 3rd party tool to update its re if that tool uses
>> repeaters.  this is not unprecedented.  the inactive repeater feature
>> might already require a 3rd party tool to update its re.
>>
>> so upon reflection i think i'd go for commentable repeater cookies.
>> it has a bonus too: whenever you turn off a repeater, it can be
>> annoying that it zeroes out the interval.  commenting would fix that.
>>
>> perhaps there is a better, unmentioned solution?
>
> I think commented repeaters add unnecessary overhead to the already
> loaded timestamp syntax. This is, IMO, not a common enough need to
> warrant even a minor syntax change.
>
> However, we still need to move forward. So, I suggest to revert the
> change about inactive timestamps. Inactive timestamps cannot be
> repeated. This is less disruptive than the current situation. 

yes, agreed.

> However, I also suggest to add a new hook, run after repeating
> timestamps. With this hook, and a proper, user-specific, markup, it
> should be possible to pick inactive timestamps in the section and
> "repeat" them manually, i.e., on a case-by-case basis.

another (maybe crazy) idea is to advise org-auto-repeat-maybe and set
org-repeat-re as needed before it gets called.

regards,
-cm