Re: [Groff] Hygienic mode design

[Peter Schaffter]

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
http://www.schaffter.ca