Re: Defining function based on alias

[Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 12:14:54 -0800
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jan 8,  7:19pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> } Subject: Re: Defining function based on alias
> }
> } I am about to commit the following, which I hope will hope will stop
> } people coming to grief with this common confusion.  Please say if you
> } see any problems.
> 
> No problems, but -- if it's possible to detect this situation, why not
> simply suppress the alias expansion and define the function as named,
> rather than trigger an error?

It's too late; we'd have to wind back to where the alias was read and
read eveything in again, which is quite contorted, and not actually
guaranteed to fix things if it's a tortuous alias.  Possibly an even better
argument is that this silently changes the syntax, which is usually a
bad idea.

> I never remember how to rebuild FAQ from FAQ.yo ... can someone check
> my yodl syntax?

It seems OK but you just run "make" in Etc.

pws