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"