On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote: > Hello list,
Hello ! > I'm opposed to syntax highlighting of symbols in PicoLisp. Wao, this is quite an introduction for a post on the list ! I guess that it is not spontaneous and may be triggered by a discussion on IRC? > As I understand it, syntax highlighting marks symbols which are > "keywords" in the language. However, PicoLisp doesn't have keywords. > There are just "symbols". I perfectly agree with this, even though syntax highlighting may not be restricted to symbols (no scoop here). > It has built-in symbols, yes, but that doesn't make them special in any > way. > […] > 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. Clearly visible, at a certain level, indeed, but it can help to spot mistakes. More precisely, concerning the language I’m basing on PicoLisp, which is dedicated to beginners, I'd like to say: - Coloring transient symbols is important to help students spot quote errors (which may be trivial, but can occur with people not used to programming)
