Mm - hmm.
There are certain things that are attribute - value , similar to the bindings below but I mean they 're just  us usually they 're going to be value  value fillers , right ? OK , and then again semantic constraints here are just  are just bindings. There was talk of changing the name of that. And Johno and I  I  you  you and I can like fight about that if you like ? but about changing it to " semantic  n effects " , which I thought was a little bit too order - biased
Well  Th
and " semantic bindings " , which I thought might be too restrictive in case we don't have only bindings. And so it was an issue whether constraints  um , there were some linguists who reacted against " constraints " , saying , " oh , if it 's not used for matching , then it shouldn't be called a constraint ". But I think we want to be uncommitted about whether it 's used for matching or not. Right ? Cuz there are  I think we thought of some situations where it would be useful to use whatever the c bindings are , for actual , you know , sort of like modified constraining purposes.