Sebastian Christ <rudolfo.chr...@gmail.com> writes: [...]
> >> + (let* ((beg (third pos)) > >> + (end (second pos)) > >> + (post-affiliated (first pos)) > Kyle> > Kyle> Hmm, the pos items are constructed as > Kyle> > Kyle> (list (org-element-property :begin block) > Kyle> (org-element-property :end block) > Kyle> (org-element-property :post-affiliated block))))))) > Kyle> > Kyle> so shouldn't beg be the first element and post-affiliated the third? > > I thought it would be better to change as little as > possible. Rearranging the list is obviously the cleaner solution. I'll > change that. Sorry, my question wasn't clear. I wasn't concerned about arrangement, but about whether you're accessing the correct element of the list. If the list is constructed as (:begin :end :post-affiliated), why does your let-binding above take the third element as beg and the first element as post-affiliated? -- Kyle
