Subject: bug#40671: [DOC] modify literal objects

From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 15:39:55 -0700

On 5/3/20 3:18 PM, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> On 03.05.2020 23:48, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> (If there's a better
>> term than "constants" we haven't found it yet.)
> 
> "Objects referenced from executable code", presumably.

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....

> On 03.05.2020 23:48, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> If we change the word "constants" to something else, we would presumably retitle
>> the section and adjust its contents accordingly. Regardless of which word is
>> chosen we should document the issue, which is broader than that of constants
>> from self-evaluating forms.
> 
> Yes. But you supposedly want to move some of the contents (which don't pertain exactly to self-evaluating forms) to some other section.

There must be some miscommunication, as I thought you wanted to move some of
that section's contents. I vaguely recall responding that something along those
lines could work, but I don't recall any specific suggestion after that.

> Could you make that naming choice yourself? I can only move it to one of the existing ones. 

I don't understand this request; I don't know what you mean by "it" or by
"moving" or by "existing ones".

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.