[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bug: Priority Of A Task In Emacs 27.2 Cannot Be Removed With Space K
From: |
Tim Cross |
Subject: |
Re: Bug: Priority Of A Task In Emacs 27.2 Cannot Be Removed With Space Key ("SPC to remove") |
Date: |
Fri, 28 May 2021 00:40:24 +1000 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.5.13; emacs 27.2.50 |
Confirmed.
Yes, I would agree that not being able to clear the priority by entering
space when using numeric priorities is a bug. The minibuffer prompt even
states you can enter a space character to clear the priority.
To reproduce -
set the org variables
(setq org-priority-highest 1
org-priority-lowest 10
org-priority-default 5)
Use C-c , to set a priority on a TODO item.
Use C-c , and enter a space <enter>
Observe the priority cookie is not removed.
This only occurs with numeric priority values. The default letter based
priority values and space to clear functionality work as expected.
Org version: 9.4.6
Emacs version 27.2
"Samuel Banya" <sbanya@fastmail.com> writes:
> Gotcha, yeah I only use priority 1 through 5 with a kind of "Getting Things
> Done" mentality to file things away in their right place.
>
> I don't like using letters unfortunately, but thanks for this potential
> workaround in that case.
>
> Clearing priorities with a space and enter doesn't work though, and I believe
> this is a bug.
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2021, at 1:26 AM, Tim Cross wrote:
>
> Not sure how easy it would be to restore the previous behaviour. I guess
> if you restricted numerical priorities to 0 .. 9 it would be reasonably
> easy as you only need to check for a single key press. However, once you
> go above 9 and have the situation where the value could be more than a
> single key press, you have no way to know when input is finished.
>
> It should be noted that the old behaviour using letters for priorities
> still works (as does clearing wiht a space). Personally, I've always
> been happy with just letters and 3 priorities. I find once you go past
> about 3 or 4, priorities don't have a lot of value. YMMV of course.
>
> "Samuel Banya" <sbanya@fastmail.com> writes:
>
> > Thanks for confirming this as I didn't know if it was my config or
> something.
> >
> > I'd like to add if possible, if there would the ability to restore the
> previously functionality of being able to just hit a number from 1 to 9 to
> set the
> priority
> > of a task as well.
> >
> > Didn't want to conflate things too much, but it would be great if there
> was a config option around this before I would have to make a workaround
> in Elisp
> > instead.
> >
> > On Thu, May 27, 2021, at 4:05 AM, Tim Cross wrote:
> >
> > Confirmed
> >
> > I can reproduce this in org 9.4.6, Emacs 27.2. Bug confirmed.
> >
> > "Samuel Banya" <sbanya@fastmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > Hello there,
> > >
> > > I noticed a weird bug within Emacs Org Mode as I use it often for my
> TODO lists for both personal use and for work.
> > >
> > > I noticed that if you hit "C-c ," you are prompted nowadays to enter a
> number from like 1 to whatever your highest priority was set to, and that
> > you have
> > > to enter in the number and THEN press enter.
> > >
> > > This behavior on a side note is a little annoying since I usually only
> use priorities 1 through 5, and don't want to have to hit enter each time. I
> kind
> > of wish
> > > I could just go back to just hitting '1' or '5' and moving on. But, I
> understand this was to make the ceiling of the highest priority be like 65 or
> > something
> > > like that, so I understand why this was included.
> > >
> > > My main point is that the "SPC to remove" option doesn't actually work.
> > >
> > > If you try doing "C-c ," then hit Space, and then press Enter, the
> priority of the task still remains the same.
> > >
> > > Workaround:
> > > I've had to manually delete the priority number as a workaround which
> is a bit annoying.
> > > I've used F3 as a on-the-fly macro to quickly do this across multiple
> todo list items as well.
> > > However, it does feel a little awkward having to do this, so I'm
> wondering if anyone has encountered this as well.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Sam
> >
> > --
> > Tim Cross
>
> --
> Tim Cross
--
Tim Cross