Re: Some commentary on the Org Syntax document

[Timothy <tecosaur@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1460 bytes --]

Hi Ihor,

Because your reply is shorter, you get my first response 😛.

>> [Renaming parts of the Hierarchy]
> I am against renaming this. We should rather improve the syntax document
> keeping the key concepts consistent with Elisp code.

This is certainly something to be conservative about, but I think some small
tweaks could be beneficial. See my comment below.

> Org parser distinguish two principal types of syntax structures:
> 1. Elements
> 2. Objects
>
> Neither elements nor objects can intersect their boundaries, but they
> can be nested.
>
> An object is always a part of some element or other object.
> Greater element can contain other elements and objects.
> Element that is not greater element can only contain objects.

A thought has just occurred to me, how about instead of having
“elements” which are split into “Greater Elements” and other “Elements”, what if
we simply added the prefix “lesser” to the later?

I.e. go from

⁃ Elements
  • Greater Elements
  • (other) Elements

to

⁃ Elements
  • Greater Elements
  • Lesser Elements

I think having something explicit like this could reduce the chance of
confusion.

> [Comments on headings and sections]

This accords with my reading of the document and the way I’ve implemented things
in OrgMode.jl (see <https://github.com/tecosaur/OrgMode.jl/blob/main/src/types/sections.jl>).

All the best,
Timothy