[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ? |
Date: |
Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:52:42 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) |
Bertrand Bordage <address@hidden> writes:
> "define-procedure" sounds too generic to me. Why not
> "define-void-procedure" ?
That's two distinctions from define-*-function and we need just one as
far as I can see. If we have define-void-procedure, what would be a
non-void procedure? If there is no such thing as a non-void procedure,
why make the word more complicated than necessary? If there is, what
makes it different from a function?
--
David Kastrup
- define-void-function or define-procedure ?, David Kastrup, 2011/10/19
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?, Bertrand Bordage, 2011/10/19
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?,
David Kastrup <=
- Message not available
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?, David Kastrup, 2011/10/19
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?, Carl Sorensen, 2011/10/19
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?, David Kastrup, 2011/10/19
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?, David Kastrup, 2011/10/19
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?, Graham Percival, 2011/10/19
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?, Carl Sorensen, 2011/10/19
- Re: define-void-function or define-procedure ?, David Kastrup, 2011/10/20