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