Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > Thorsten Jolitz <tjol...@gmail.com> writes: > >> You used the word 'discrepancy', > > True. I inferred it from > > (funny enough, some org elements have 'value' as their content, others > 'content'). > > which, IMO, sounds like it is a surprising fact. > >> I simply needed to know for each org >> element what is interpreted and what not. And some have a content, >> others a :value. > > As in every AST, some nodes are terminal (no contents), and some are not > (contents). > > This distinction is made in `org-element-greater-elements', i.e., > non-terminal elements. See also `org-element-recursive-objects' for > non-terminal objects. > >> So if I pass 'Hello World' as content to an example >> block, nothing happens, if I pass it via :value, it appears as the >> blocks ... well, content. > > Contents imply Org syntax. This would defeat the purpose of an example > block.
Ok, so its just a matter of wording. On the computer science side of things, content seems to be org elements or objects contained in other org elements (like table rows in a table), and on the laymans side of things the text inside of an example block looks very much like the blocks content too (while its technically named 'value' in this case). -- cheers, Thorsten
