You make a good point. To some extent this reflects that PicoC wasn't originally a library at all. It was a standalone interpreter that I later converted to library form.
The other factor is that the code as it stands is designed to be as readable as possible. I'm conscious that prefixing every identifier with "PicoC" will make the whole thing a bit less easy to read. I'm not sure if maximising readability is something that people really care about though. I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions on whether they'd prefer "struct ValueType" or "struct PicoCValueType" in a thousand places throughout the code.
The other factor is that the code as it stands is designed to be as readable as possible. I'm conscious that prefixing every identifier with "PicoC" will make the whole thing a bit less easy to read. I'm not sure if maximising readability is something that people really care about though. I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions on whether they'd prefer "struct ValueType" or "struct PicoCValueType" in a thousand places throughout the code.