|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | bug#40671: [DOC] modify literal objects |
Date: | Mon, 4 May 2020 01:53:17 +0300 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 |
On 04.05.2020 01:39, Paul Eggert wrote: > A fair number of objects fit that category. (The objects that don't > are typically garbage collected. So that term doesn't describe what > we want clearly and accurately; plus, it's pretty long.... Example, please.
If you're talking about the title of the "Constants and Mutability" section, the current term "constants" is fine with me, as it follows existing practice in CLtL etc. I'm open for suggestions for changing the term, but we haven't come up with a better term as far as I can see, or even a term that's roughly equal in quality.
I'm clearly not the only one objecting to the new terms. And especially the juxtaposition of "constants and mutability" that you added to the docs. It would be a shame to revert your whole work, though.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |