Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
2007/9/28, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I thought that "macro" was safer, since we can't redefine variables.
Actually, you can, afaik.
Wow, we can! Ok, that settles this debate; "variables" it is.
Cheers,
- Graham
__
2007/9/28, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> > Identifier isn't a good term either, that is the term for the lexical
> > function ("an identifier a sequence of letters").
> >
> > Perhaps we should just 'variable'
>
> I thought that "macro" was safer, since we can't re
2007/9/29, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Intuitively, forgetting about any computer or math courses, I find
> myself wanting to call them "variables". If somebody is trying to cause
> trouble, they might complain that they can't change their values, but
> I'll stick a sentence in the doc
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Identifier isn't a good term either, that is the term for the lexical
function ("an identifier a sequence of letters").
Perhaps we should just 'variable'
I thought that "macro" was safer, since we can't redefine variables.
But I agree with your points against "macro".
Graham Percival escreveu:
> Are there sound technical reasons why we call identifiers "identifiers"?
> I haven't come across the term anywhere else; how objectionable would
> it be if we called them "macros" instead?
Macros are usually reserved for a substitution mechanism where the
result of the
Are there sound technical reasons why we call identifiers "identifiers"?
I haven't come across the term anywhere else; how objectionable would
it be if we called them "macros" instead?
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel
