Re: Some commentary on the Org Syntax document

Hello, Ihor Radchenko writes: > Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> 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

Re: Some commentary on the Org Syntax document

Nicolas Goaziou 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

Re: Some commentary on the Org Syntax document

Ihor Radchenko writes: >> There are actually three types of elements: not all elements can contain >> objects. > > You are right. However, I am not sure if it is a good idea to mention > this in the introduction part of the syntax document. > > Maybe we can just say "... lesser elements" that can

Re: Some commentary on the Org Syntax document

Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> This sounds reasonable. We can change >> >> - Three categories are used to classify these environments: “Greater >> elements”, “elements”, and “objects”, from the broadest scope to the >> narrowest. The word “element” is used for both Greater and non-Greater >> el

Re: Some commentary on the Org Syntax document

Hello, Ihor Radchenko writes: > Timothy writes: > >> ⁃ Elements >> • Greater Elements >> • (other) Elements >> >> to >> >> ⁃ Elements >> • Greater Elements >> • Lesser Elements > > This sounds reasonable. We can change > > - Three categories are used to classify these environments: “Gre

Re: Some commentary on the Org Syntax document

Hi Ihor, > This sounds reasonable. We can change > [snip] 👍 I’ll make a note in my draft then. >>> [Comments on headings and sections] >> >> This accords with my reading of the document and the way I’ve implemented >> things >> in OrgMode.jl (see >>

Re: Some commentary on the Org Syntax document

Timothy writes: > ⁃ Elements > • Greater Elements > • (other) Elements > > to > > ⁃ Elements > • Greater Elements > • Lesser Elements This sounds reasonable. We can change - Three categories are used to classify these environments: “Greater elements”, “elements”, and “objects”, from t

Re: Some commentary on the Org Syntax document

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

Re: Some commentary on the Org Syntax document

Timothy writes: > So, the hierarchy appears to be something like. > > 1. (Headline / Section / Greater Element / Element / Object) > 2. Headline > 3. Section > 4. Greater Element > 5. (Greater Element / Element) > 6. Element > 7. Object > 8. Pattern / Form > 9. Term > We could say call (1) Compo

Re: Some commentary on the Org Syntax document

Hi Timothy, Replies in line. Some things might seem a bit out of order because I responded from bottom to top. Best, Tom > from heading to bed, so to quote Pascal "I have only made this letter > longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter". Likewise, and I've heard it as Mark Twa

Re: Some commentary on the Org Syntax document

Hi Tom, Thanks for your comments, they've been most helpful. I have some comments on your comments, and have also started drafting some tweaks to the document in light of your initial comments, put as a diff excerpt at the end of this email. For starters, I have come more general comments. Howe

Re: Some commentary on the Org Syntax document

Hi Timothy, Replies in line. Best! Tom On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 1:32 AM Timothy wrote: > > Hi All (& Nicolas in particular again), > > With my recent efforts to write a parser based on > , I’ve developed a few thoughts > on > that document. Hopeful

Some commentary on the Org Syntax document

Hi All (& Nicolas in particular again), With my recent efforts to write a parser based on , I’ve developed a few thoughts on that document. Hopefully, they can lead to some improvements and clarifications. ―