Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > LW> This would be relatively straightforward for syntax highlighters, > LW> I think. But Perl 6 will throw other curves at highlighters that > LW> will be much more difficult to solve, such as the fact that any > LW> C<use> potentially changes the subsequent syntax. Even an operator > LW> declaration changes the subsequent syntax. Making things easy for > LW> syntax highlighters is not a primary design goal for Perl 6--in this > LW> Perl will remain the AntiLisp. > > and don't forget that since p6 will use the <perl> grammar to parse > perl, that will be available to syntax highlighters. no more wacko > heuristics and broken colors (i don't use them anyway. i can parse code > just fine with b&w :) depending on what the <perl> grammar produces > there might be some extra processing needed.
I think you're only going to get truly accurate syntax highlighting for all Perl in an image based IDE implemented in Perl since such an editor will always know what grammar rules are in scope for a given chunk of code. And once you go to an image based IDE and have access to the bytecode of the code you're writing there's all *sorts* of interesting things you can do. And that's before one starts to imagine attaching the IDE/debugger to a running process... -- Beware the Perl 6 early morning joggers -- Allison Randal
