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