From: Ihor Radchenko <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <email@example.com>
Cc: Tom Gillespie <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Subject: Re: Some commentary on the Org Syntax document
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2021 14:30:14 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y24zbm2x.fsf@localhost> (raw)
Nicolas Goaziou <email@example.com> writes:
>> Maybe we can just say "... lesser elements" that cannot contain other
>> elements."? Then, we mention that some elements cannot contain objects
>> in the description of those elements.
> But then, you do not remove the ambiguity that is condemned in this
> thread. The greater element/element and greater element/lesser element
> distinctions are equivalent, albeit not identical.
AFAIU, elements = greater-elements ∪ lesser-elements
The current syntax draft contains section "Greater elements" defining
all the greater-elements and section "Elements" defining lesser-elements
However, the word "elements" also refers to all possible elements in
some parts of the draft.
I propose to remove the ambiguity by referring to members of
org-element-greater-elements as "greater elements"; to
org-element-all-elements - org-element-greater-elements as "lesser
elements"; and to org-element-all-elements as just "elements".
> IIUC, you want three terms for elements (I am not even talking about
> secondary strings, which can hold objects that are not part of
> ... and probably two for objects: terminal and non-terminal.
Sorry, I do not understand what you refer to here.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-05 6:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-02 9:23 Some commentary on the Org Syntax document Timothy
2021-12-02 19:00 ` Tom Gillespie
2021-12-02 19:16 ` Timothy
2021-12-04 5:26 ` Tom Gillespie
2021-12-04 6:17 ` Ihor Radchenko
2021-12-04 6:48 ` Timothy
2021-12-04 7:40 ` Ihor Radchenko
2021-12-04 8:09 ` Timothy
2021-12-04 9:41 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2021-12-04 14:00 ` Ihor Radchenko
2021-12-04 14:43 ` Nicolas Goaziou
2021-12-05 6:30 ` Ihor Radchenko [this message]
2021-12-05 9:28 ` Nicolas Goaziou
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).