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