On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, John Chambers wrote: > Part of the problem seems to be that a few years ago, > the Microsoft Outlook package introduced a sort of > programming language that they called "macros". Why > they used this term is somewhat of a mystery,
John, the Wordperfect wordprocessor had already "macros" in the same sense of the word way back in the '80s. > Terms are being bandied about with unstated meanings > about which I can only guess. I'd be reluctant to > let it into a standard for this reason alone. How one calls these mechanisms is utterly unimportant. The only important thing is that these facilities should be available to those who would like to use them. In an earlier mail this day I already explained the difference in semantics between the m: and the U: mechanism. If you're still confused, I suggest that you (re)read my remarks. The bottomline is that both notations are useful and should be available. > Anyway, if we can't get this straight amongst > ourselves, It's completely straight, because both mechanisms have been well documented and implemented. Groeten, Irwin Oppenheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~* Chazzanut Online: http://www.joods.nl/~chazzanut/ To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
