Re: after ids

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:35:58 -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote:

This is a ***-old thread, I know, for some reason a few messages
accidentally got marked as unread, so I've ended up reading it over
again... But something just jumped out at me...


(1) this is closer in my view to an [at] command, rather than an
[after]
Indeed, and I'm all in favour of implementing [at] - just haven't
had the time to do it myself (and it *does* need a TIP).

Would [clock alarm] make sense, rather than adding a new [at] command?
Its placement as a sub-command of [clock] also points directly at the
fact that this command is based on wall-clock time, rather than elapsed
time.


Just a thought...


Fredderic
.