Hello, Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> writes:
> Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> 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 ∪ 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". I understand the proposal. I'm just pointing out that currently, the distinction exists already in some other form—as noted, what you call lesser elements is currently the set difference between greater elements and elements. Therefore, it is hardly a huge step forward. In any case, both proposals are incomplete. >> 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. For clarity, I mean three terms /in addition to "elements"/. For example, a drawer, a paragraph and a planning line all are elements. Yet, they may be different enough so as to deserve their own label. >> ... and probably two for objects: terminal and non-terminal. > > Sorry, I do not understand what you refer to here. Some objects can contain other objects. Others cannot. Per above, it may be ambiguous to use the term "object" for both categories. In a nutshell, naming is hard. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
