Hi Tomas,

> good to know.  Maybe this noLint should be added at the end of
> lib/xml.l?

Not necessary as long as we write 'xml_' as '_xml_'.

> > Well, 'Pre' and 'Nl' are indeed unused in 'xml'.
> Well, whether they are used or not depends on interpretation:
> lexically they are not used, dynamically they are used; they cannot be
> removed without changing the behaviour of the 'xml' function because
> they provide initial values for the recursive '_xml' function.

Correct. What I meant was that in the way 'lint' looks at it, they are
considered as "not used".

If you have

   (de foo ()
      (let N 7 (bar)) )

   (de bar ()
      (inc N) )

you get

   ((foo (use N)) (bar (bnd N)))

while with

   (de foo ()
      (let N 7 (_bar)) )

   (de _bar ()
      (inc N) )

you'll get NIL.

'lint' simply checks for certain conventions.

> > There is a convention in PicoLisp that when a function name starts
> > with an underscore, it is considered a "local" function.
> ...
> > Shall I keep '_xml_', or would you prefer another name?
> I did not know about the convention.  Please keep the new '_xml_'
> name.

OK. BTW, the convention is shortly metioned in "doc/ref.html#conv".

> Just a thought: I do not like underscores in names much because it

Yes, me too.

> Wouldn't it be worth using a different prefix, maybe in the picolisp3?

I'm not sure. I feel that it is its ugliness which predestines it to
denote such a "local" concept.

picolisp3 only addresses the lowest levels of the interpreter, not the
naming conventions.

- Alex
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to