On 9/22/2006, John Gruber said:
> Comments work the same way. Here's a pattern that supports
both > /* inline */ and // rest-of-line comment syntax:
> > <key>Comment Pattern</key>
Are these two constructs, "String Pattern" and "Comment
Pattern", not
documented because they're not officially supported yet? Or is their lack
of documentation an omission?
My educated guess is that they are supported but that the new
CLM format's
documentation is MIA.
What I'm seeing is that if you use either of these grep-enabled versions,
then BBEdit will ignore any other (non-grep) string or comment language
keys defined in your language module.
This is another educated guess, but... it seems like that might
simply be a
bug, or an unintended feature omission, or whatever you want to
call it.
Seems that it would be trivial for BBEdit to build the patterns logically
based on the old plist properties. Then you could specify them
the old, easy
way, but still refer to them in the function pattern by name as
you can do
now.
This can be worked around, I suppose, by crafting a single regular
expression that handles *all* of the string formats you wish to color, but
it seems a shame that simple string (and comment) formats can't be defined
using the older, simpler keys, while still using the new grep-enabled keys
to match more complicated language constructs.
I would guess it's simply a bug or omission.
I've written a few CLM's now, and I've had thoughts similar to
what you've
expressed here, but have been too busy to say anything about it until
tonight.
It's good to know BBEdit isn't perfect yet. I like having
something to look
forward to. ;-)
Seth
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a feature request? Not sure the software's working correctly?
If so, please send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not to the list.
List FAQ: <http://www.barebones.com/support/lists/bbedit_talk.shtml>
List archives: <http://www.listsearch.com/BBEditTalk.lasso>
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
