Hi Christophe,

> > 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?

Correct :) Though incidentally not IRC this time, but an e-mail
conversation.

Anyway, this issue popped up relatively often during the last years. My
impression was that some people naturally expect syntax highlighting, or
even demand it, and I felt I should also make my position clear.


> > 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).

Yes, as I said, comments. There isn't much more syntax to Lisp, except
for the parentheses. Perhaps read-macros.


> > 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.

True, unbalanced quotes. So strings indeed make sense. *Tsm gave a clear
indication (underlining).


> 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)

Makes sense.
♪♫ Alex
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Reply via email to