On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Lex Trotman <ele...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > Fixed now. Actually the tests "failed" because the tested files were C++ headers and the previously-generated tags files were incorrect because of the used C parser. So yeah, BEWARE USERS, HEADERS MIGHT BE PARSED CORRECTLY :-) Jiri
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.geany.org https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel