Great. I also think we should push in this direction.

So, I will continue testing and provide feedback. Please ping me when you
modify something. Ok?

Cheers,
Doru

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@web.de> wrote:

> I do, working with RBStyler makes much more fun than with the other one
> and working
> with AST instead of plain code text, gives us many possibilities to create
> great tools (highlighter for example:) )
>
> ->
> pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/16492/no-syntax-highlighting-if-last-expression-is-invalid-code
>
> I think we should not go back to the old one, but force the work on the rb
> styler.
> Just report any issues you see.
>
>
> 2015-09-05 20:29 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes, indeed. I think it is already much better than it was some months
>> ago, and I definitely think it is a great goal to have everything around RB.
>>
>> My question was only if there is anyone that invests in this actively
>> because perhaps we can work together?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Doru
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Yes, I am aware of that.
>>>
>>> The idea was to evaluate how good the RB AST colouring is already and
>>> maybe find the energy to
>>> fix all remaining problems… we fixed many but not all.
>>>
>>> I propose that we keep it for some month more and if we don’t improve
>>> these problems go
>>> back to the old scheme for Pharo5.
>>>
>>> Then we can re-start to work on this in Pharo6.
>>>
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>> On 05 Sep 2015, at 07:28, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Here is an example.
>>>
>>> Type this in a playground in a Pharo 5 image, and all statements before
>>> the parentheses become black:
>>> | a b c d |
>>> a := 42.
>>> b := a + 1.
>>> c := b + 1.
>>> d := c + 1.
>>>  a . b . c . d }
>>>
>>> <Playground-50.png>
>>>
>>> Here is how this looks in a Pharo 4:
>>>
>>> <Playground-40.png>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Doru
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@web.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This depends on the kind of error. For example, a missing open or
>>>> closed parenthesis will most
>>>> likely mark the whole (following) code.
>>>>
>>>> But it should still highlight the preceding code.
>>>> Can you give an example.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> nicolai
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2015-09-04 23:10 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's nice that we are going towards consolidating our tools
>>>>> around RB.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, the highlighting logic is not quite enough because if I have
>>>>> an error anywhere in the code, the whole highlighting disappears. In
>>>>> contrast, Shout manages to limit the problem only to the surrounding code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is anyone working on this part of the highlighting?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Doru
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>>>>
>>>>> "Every thing has its own flow"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>>
>>> "Every thing has its own flow"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> www.tudorgirba.com
>>
>> "Every thing has its own flow"
>>
>
>


-- 
www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

Reply via email to