[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Groff] Hygienic mode design

From: Peter Schaffter
Subject: Re: [Groff] Hygienic mode design
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:19:06 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden>:
> > 
> > > Actually, now that I think about it, the right semantics for
> > > ".hygiene" is probably "hide everything *currently defined* that
> > > hasn't been declared visible".  That way you can define macros after
> > > a .hygiene call and they'll be visible unless you do another
> > > .hygiene call.
> > 
> > What about doing the autoconf approach with regular patterns to allow
> > and disallow function names? 
> Possible, but smells of overengineering to me.

Actually, it's very much how I was thinking about the issue until
Eric proposed .hygiene.  I like hygiene, but it does introduce a
bit of fussiness.  I guess the question is: if both approaches can
accomplish the goal, which is the more robust?  Corollary, which is
the cleanest to implement?

Peter Schaffter

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]