Bertrand Bordage <bordage.bertr...@gmail.com> writes: > "define-procedure" sounds too generic to me. Why not > "define-void-procedure" ?
That's two distinctions from define-*-function and we need just one as far as I can see. If we have define-void-procedure, what would be a non-void procedure? If there is no such thing as a non-void procedure, why make the word more complicated than necessary? If there is, what makes it different from a function? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
