Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:27:10 +0930 |
Content-Type: | multipart/signed |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 12/08/2009, at 8:33 PM, Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard wrote:
> By the way, I spend a few more time reading parts of source3
> yesterday, and I'd
> like to say that the terminology is quite comfortable to read.
Good to hear :)
> It sounds more familiar to hear about functions and variables that
> about macros and macros. OTOH (but this is really a personnal
> impression) I'm sometimes confused by the use of "return".
I think you're probably right that "expands to" is better than
"return", both for technical accuracy and for clarity.
> IMO, it is certainly ok to keep the terminology, but adding warnings
> that
> sometimes it doesn't actually fit the reality, but is only intended
> to simplify
> reading. (Either a big general warning, or small foonotes in well-
> chosen places,
> or both.)
I'll try and work something into source3.
Many thanks,
Will
|
|
|