Re: Some commentary on the Org Syntax document

[Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com>]

Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> 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
> contents),

Yep.

> ... and probably two for objects: terminal and non-terminal.

Sorry, I do not understand what you refer to here.

Best,
Ihor