Re: [Orgmode] Problem with org-toggle-timestamp-type

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi Ben,

On Oct 29, 2008, at 9:46 PM, Ben Alexander wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I'm cannot figure out how to use version control in general, and git  
> in particular.  However, I think there is a mistake with org-toggle- 
> timestamp-type.
>
> Currently, the message always returns "Timestamp is now active"  
> regardless of wether it is or not.  I think this is because the  
> message is not inside the save-excursion block, so we can't be sure  
> whether point was outside the timestamp (just in front) or inside  
> (at the very end).  Inside save-excursion, I think it is always  
> moved to the end, does the edit, and is moved outside.
>
> Also, I think the sense of the test is backwards.  And for some  
> reason (if (equal (char-before) ?]) "in" "") didn't work (went to  
> elisp debugger). I can't read lisp, it's beyond me.
>
> So here's the change I made (to org-version 6.10c)
>
>
> (defun org-toggle-timestamp-type ()
>  "Toggle the type (<active> or [inactive]) of a time stamp."
>  (interactive)
>  (when (org-at-timestamp-p t)
>    (save-excursion
>      (goto-char (match-beginning 0))
>      (insert (if (equal (char-after) ?<) "[" "<")) (delete-char 1)
>      (goto-char (1- (match-end 0)))
>      (insert (if (equal (char-after) ?>) "]" ">")) (delete-char 1)
>      (message "Timestamp is now %sactive"
>             (if (equal (char-before) ?>) "" "in")))))

I have applied a similar fix, thanks.


> There's something else, and this might very well because my git repo  
> is not what emacs is actually running, and my modified Makefile  
> install target might be foobar.
>
> If I have a timestamp that looks like <2009-01-29 Thu>--<2009-01-29  
> Thu> and the cursor is in front of the first > symbol and then I hit  
> the S-<up> twice, my timestamp no longer is a range.  It now looks  
> like [2009-01-30 Fri]
>
> I tried to look at the org-ts[r]?-regexp-* variables, but my eyes  
> crossed.  Plus, I'm very afraid that any change I'd make would add  
> parentheses, and thereby screwup every (match-begin 8) in the code.

Yes, there is a problem with this regexp, and I not not know myself  
how to fix it.  Negated character classes do not seem to work as  
advertised if there is a bracket inside.

Thanks!

- Carsten