Talk:Patent val: Difference between revisions
Dave Keenan (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Dave Keenan (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
::::::::: Thanks FloraC. | ::::::::: Thanks FloraC. | ||
::::::::: It is arguable that the introduction of ''val'' was a forced language reform since, before that, and after, tuning list contributors were happy to use descriptive terms like "ET mapping" and "mapping row". So arguably, ''if'' we replaced ''val'' we would merely be undoing a forced language reform. | ::::::::: It is arguable that the introduction of ''val'' was a forced language reform since, before that, and after, tuning list contributors were happy to use descriptive terms like "ET mapping" and "mapping row". So arguably, ''if'' we replaced ''val'' we would merely be ''undoing'' a forced language reform. | ||
::::::::: However I don't actually want to replace any existing occurrences of ''val''. I only want to ensure that the way is open for Douglas to use ''map'' as a synonym for it, in his excellent pedagogical articles. And for others to use ''map'' in that way if they choose, going forward. | ::::::::: However I don't actually want to replace any existing occurrences of ''val''. I only want to ensure that the way is open for Douglas to use ''map'' as a synonym for it, in his excellent pedagogical articles. And for others to use ''map'' in that way if they choose, going forward. | ||