Hello list, I'm opposed to syntax highlighting of symbols in PicoLisp.
As I understand it, syntax highlighting marks symbols which are "keywords" in the language. However, PicoLisp doesn't have keywords. There are just "symbols". It has built-in symbols, yes, but that doesn't make them special in any way. Lexically all symbols are equivalent, and their meaning depends on the (dynamic) context, not on their (static) name. A symbol might represent a function, or a piece of data. And functions might be redefined or bound any time. If the editor detects, say, "if", and highlights it as a flow-function, it may be wrong because it can be a symbol in a list of terms and means "interface". Or "car" may refer to a vehicle. Syntax highlighting for symbols can't be done "right". Being correct in 99 percent of the cases - but wrong in 1 percent - is fatal. If something cannot be done right, it shouldn't be done at all. This is the reason why I use syntax highlighting only for comments in my editor. Comments can indeed be detected lexically. I've also experimented with strings (see *Tsm, transient symbol markup), but these are also symbols, with possible meaning depending on the context. And strings are clearly visible anyway. ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
