Explicit OR?

[eugene-jetruby]

Explicit OR?

[eugene-jetruby]

And it does work! Thank you for your help!

[eugene-jetruby]

Yes, it does work, and it reads simpler. Thank you @tuh8888

Btw, "past or today" sounds like a pretty common usecase for me. Doesn't it deserve its own selector? @alphapapa

[alphapapa]

Hi Eugene,

Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad it's useful to you.

I suppose this could be a shortcoming in the :scheduled selector. But have you tried this?

(:name "Routine" :and (:tag "daily" :scheduled past :scheduled today))

I'm guessing that would work, but I haven't tried it. Please let me know whether it does.

Thanks.

[eugene-jetruby]

No, it returns no entries. And that seems to be the correct behavior for :and, because a headline can not be scheduled for two days at the same time. That's exactly what I want to achieve: tag = 'daily' AND (scheduled = 'past' OR scheduled = 'today')

[alphapapa]

Of course, you're right. I haven't used my own pseudo-language here in a while. :)

How about this?

(:name "Routine" :and (:tag "daily" :scheduled past) :and (:tag "daily" :scheduled today))

I think that will do it, even though it's a bit awkward compared to having an :or selector.

[tuh8888]

Since today AND past = NOT future, maybe this would be simpler:

(:name "Routine" :and (:tag "daily" :not (:scheduled future)))

[alphapapa]

@tuh8888 An entry that is :not (:scheduled future) could also be unscheduled, so that selector would not be equivalent.

[tuh8888]

That's good to know. What about this then?:

 (:name "Routine" :and (:tag "daily" :not (:scheduled future) :scheduled t))

[alphapapa]

Yes, I think that should work. I forgot that t is a valid argument to :scheduled. Good idea!

[alphapapa]

Btw, "past or today" sounds like a pretty common usecase for me. Doesn't it deserve its own selector?

Generally I'd rather aim for composability than special combinations which would have to be documented, looked up, remembered, etc.