On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Joel E. Denny wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Joel E. Denny wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Paul Eggert wrote: > > > > > This all sounds OK (in that I can't simplify it much more :-) except > > > that the names are still confusing. "%pre-defines" sounds like > > > predefined symbols, but then "%post-defines" would be -- what -- > > > postdefined symbols? > > [...] > > Would %defines-pre and %defines-post be any better to you? That would be > > just as fine with me. > > I guess this didn't help. How about %before-defines and %after-defines? > That way, no one can read "pre-defines" and "pre-defined".
I meant: That way, no one can read "pre-defines" AS "pre-defined". Joel
