On 8 January 2016 at 08:00, Jiří Techet <tec...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Thomas Martitz <ku...@rockbox.org> wrote: >> >> Am 06.01.2016 um 21:12 schrieb Jiří Techet: >>> >>> >>> >>> It's indeed at least interesting to consider, because at least for .h >>> headers there really is some mixed stuff all over the place -- even, >>> simply look in Scintilla's source tree. >>> >>> >>> +1 for having the headers parsed/lexed by the C++ parser (with sources it >>> may be a bit dangerous and typically the sources have the right C++ >>> extension). >>> >>> >> >> Not replying to Jiří specifically. >> >> -1. .h is legitimately a C, it's just that many people get it wrong. And I >> don't want C++ keywords highlighted in C headers while they are not >> highlighted it C source files. This is just confusing. > > > I agree with Matthew here - I think the "damage" caused by parsing C headers > with the C++ parser/lexer is much smaller than vice versa. Actually a few > months back a user of my ProjectOrganizer plugin wrote me just because of > that - he had a C++ project with "h" headers and was surprised that tag > generation didn't work for him. > > I created (a highly sophisticated) pull request here: > > https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/857 > > Power users can always add *.h back to C types but I think having it in C++ > is a better default.
As the failing tests show, better have a BIG warning about breaking change if we do this. > > Cheers, > > Jiri > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.geany.org > https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.geany.org https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel