[Grace-core] Edited Variable & Constant page

[James Noble]

> I don't see this as a strong argument against it. There are two  
> possible meanings of const (reference or object is const).

Right. I think we want both meanings - and probably different terms  
for each meaning.
I think I'm getting used to "field/const" for instance scope and "var/ 
const" for local scope -
although the field vs var distinction seems arbitrary. But "field"  
seems to work better with
"method" than "var" does.

> The difference has to be understood by learners whatever it is  
> called. In our case only the reference is const -- I don't think  
> that naming it const detracts from the understanding. Naming it  
> somethign different only because the object isn't certainly doesn't  
> seem to make it clearer (just more obscure).

hmm, well. I think the names are in general arbitrary, but we can try  
to get a good scheme
anyway. Introducing methods with a "method" keyword and fields with a  
"field" keyword
hopefully seems more straightforward than it actually is :-)

The term I want for value objects (immutable) is "value". (This is  
further down the queue)

> In my head, you're right: this is unpopular... :-)

there's still a question of whether consts are *initialised* with =  
or :=

J