On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:29 PM, Alban Gruin <alban.gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This adds xfuncname and word_regex patterns for golang, a quite
> popular programming language. It also includes test cases for the
> xfuncname regex (t4018) and an updated documentation.
s/an //
> The xfuncname regex finds functions, structs and interfaces. The
> word_regex pattern finds identifiers, integers, floats, complex
> numbers and operators, according to the go specification.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alban Gruin <alban.gr...@gmail.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/t/t4018/golang-complex-function b/t/t4018/golang-complex-function
> @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
> +func (t *Test) RIGHT(a Type) (Type, error) {
> + t.a = a
> + return ChangeMe, nil
> +}
Most of these files use a mix of spaces and tabs for indentation.
Please use tabs only.
> diff --git a/userdiff.c b/userdiff.c
> @@ -38,6 +38,15 @@ IPATTERN("fortran",
> +PATTERNS("golang",
> + /* Functions */
> + "^[ \t]*(func[ \t]*.*(\\{[ \t]*)?)\n"
Why is the brace (and possible following whitespace) optional?
Considering that the language demands that the brace be on the same
line, I'd think the brace should be mandatory.
I suppose you made whitespace after 'func' optional to be able to
recognize a method (which hasn't been gofmt'd):
func(x *X) name {
rather than the more typical:
func (x *X) name {
I wonder if it would make sense to tighten the expression to recognize
functions and methods as distinct cases:
function: mandatory whitespace following 'func'
method: optional whitespace but mandatory '(' following 'func'
Your current expression could accidentally match:
/*
Fish like to have
functors for lunch {
just like eels}.
*/
but, even the suggested tighter expression could "accidentally" match
example code in a comment block anyhow, so I guess it probably doesn't
matter much in practice.
> + /* Structs and interfaces */
> + "^[ \t]*(type[ \t].*(struct|interface)[ \t]*(\\{[ \t]*)?)",
Whitespace is required after 'type'. Good. The language doesn't
require '{' to be on the same line as 'struct' or 'interface', and
this expression makes it optional. Okay.
> + /* -- */
> + "[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*"
> + "|[-+0-9.eE]+i?|0[xX]?[0-9a-fA-F]+i?"
> + "|[-+*/<>%&^|=!:]=|--|\\+\\+|<<=?|>>=?|&\\^=?|&&|\\|\\||<-|\\.{3}"),
