On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Some day, we might want to offer an alternate way of marking which > > procs should be indexed, or providing a formal exports list, like the > > (declare ) form but for interpreted files as well. That would cover > > the cases where automated indexing is intractable. But yes, 50% is a > > good target for a first attempt. > > It should get 100% of the global symbols. What I can't do reliably is > get the define syntax forms. The expanded syntax that defines global > symbols though is caught. Might it not turn up global symbols that weren't intended for public visibility, though? Perhaps well-designed eggs shouldn't do that, but it could happen in the wild. (/me jumps to the egg repo to see how well-designed his eggs are...) Perhaps this isn't a problem, if the use-case is to provide a search facility. But I think that preparing a good index might take more care (as good indexes always do). Graham 'Flattering to the author, insulting to the reader," she said. "In a hyphenated word," she said with the shrewd amiability of an expert, "self-indulgent. I'm always embarrassed when I see an index an author has made of his own work. It's a revealing thing... a shameless exhibition....' -- Claire Minton, in Vonnegut's 'Cat's Cradle', on why one should never index one's own book. ;-) _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
