On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote:
> Hello list,
> 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
> 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)