On Wed, Mar 05, 2014, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org>: > > > > > 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 http://www.schaffter.ca
