At 02:45 PM 11/22/2003 +0100, you wrote:I'd certainly be in favour of renaming the existing modules to something under Text::Highlight. As for your not liking just Highlight because it is too weak - how about Text::SyntaxHighlight?
-- Regards, Aristotle
"If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
I'm not adverse to putting it under the Text:: namespace, and if there, SyntaxHighlight is a pretty good name (odd how similar this is to HTML::SyntaxHighlighter which I thought was a bad idea two days ago). I didn't really think about Syntax:: being a new top-level namespace, but it's probably not a good idea populate one. I'm happy with Text::SyntaxHighlight unless someone wants to talk me out of it.
As to the grammar caching, would it be best to make sub modules out of it, ala CGI::Session style? But something else would have to be done for namespace because Text::SyntaxHighlight::MySQL couldn't be both a MySQL-specific highlighter and a method of caching grammars in a MySQL database.
And just out of curiosity, if the other language-specific modules are moved, how it backwards compatibility maintained with programs that used Syntax::Highlight::Perl if it's now named Text::SyntaxHighlight::Perl ?
Why users that currently use Syntax::Highlight::Perl should move to Text::SyntaxHighlight::Perl? :-)
Syntax::Highlight::Perl last change is almost 3 years old. Have you tried to contact the Syntax::Highlight::Perl author in order to work with him instead of reinventing the wheel?
So, your syntax parser engine could be the core of Syntax::Highlight and all the
specific language parser (the grammars) could be live in Syntax::Highlight::*
namespace.
by
- Enrico
