Apologies for the delay.  I had lots of social events surrounding the
solar eclipse.  The eclipse was really cool, I do recommend.

See two patches attached again.  All tests pass on my computer.

I decided to add an extra `let' statement to my changes to
`org-element-timestamp-parser'.  I think it adds a touch of clarity and
maybe performance.

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:

>> My change in org-syntax.org now implies that a repeater
>> must come before a delay.  I don't know what syntax to use that doesn't
>> make that implication.  Although I don't see the harm in telling people
>> to put the repeater first.
>
> We can simply leave the previous REPEATER-OR-DELAY, but expand on it
> that REPEATER-OR-DELAY is an instance of REPEATER or an instance of
> DELAY. Does it make sense?

Done.

>> Done.  It's my first time using rx though.  I don't know if I should be
>> compiling it or something for performance?
>
> `rx' is a macro. It will be expanded during compilation.

Thank you for the piece of mind.  I'll have to use `rx' more often :).


Thanks for the reviews!  I'll start switching org-habit over to the
element API soon.  I've already played with that a bit