Re: Advise for syntax highlighting
On 2015-03-27 11:34, Jacob Carlborg wrote: I'm currently updating the TextMate D bundle for D2. I have a couple of questions for how to highlighting some specific code or how other editors/IDE's highlight them. What about #line? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Advise for syntax highlighting
On Saturday, 28 March 2015 at 00:01:48 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote: Probably should be Identifier for consistency [e.g. _arugments, __vptr, _ctor] Isn't __ctor just a DMD thing? I don't think we should be highlighting symbols which aren't guaranteed to even exist for a particular implementation.
Re: Advise for syntax highlighting
On 2015-03-28 01:01, Jesse Phillips wrote: Statement [e.g. debug, return, function, with] (that needs fixed) Not sure what you mean. Probably should be Identifier for consistency [e.g. _arugments, __vptr, _ctor] I completely forgot about these. Should these be the same as __ctfe? Which I guess is your third (special recognized built-in), though __LINE__ is a constant in Vim's highlighting [e.g. null, __VERSION__]. Yeah, both null and __LINE__ are constants in TextMate as well. I probably didn't use the correct name for describing it. * __traits identifiers __traits(allMembers, Foo); In this case allMembers. Basically the same question and alternatives as for the __ctfe variable. Identifier Same as __LINE__ or? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Advise for syntax highlighting
I'm currently updating the TextMate D bundle for D2. I have a couple of
questions for how to highlighting some specific code or how other
editors/IDE's highlight them.
* this in constructor
this () {}
In TextMate functions/methods are highlighted, should this be
highlighted as a keyword or as a method?
* this in copy constructor
this (this) {}
The this parameter, should that be highlighted as a keyword or as a
parameter?
* The __ctfe variable
if (__ctfe) {}
How should this highlighted? I see a couple of alternatives:
- not at all
- as a keyword
- as a special recognized built-in symbol, similar to __LINE__
- as a special recognized library symbol. For example, in the C bundle
many of functions in the standard library are specially recognized and
highlighted differently. This might not apply here since it's not a
library symbol
* __traits identifiers
__traits(allMembers, Foo);
In this case allMembers. Basically the same question and alternatives
as for the __ctfe variable.
* Predefined version identifiers
version (OSX) {}
Again, same a question and alternatives as for the __ctfe variable.
* Extern identifiers
extern (C)
Again, same a question and alternatives as for the __ctfe variable.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
Re: Advise for syntax highlighting
On Friday, 27 March 2015 at 10:34:58 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I'm currently updating the TextMate D bundle for D2. I have a
couple of questions for how to highlighting some specific code
or how other editors/IDE's highlight them.
* this in constructor
this () {}
In TextMate functions/methods are highlighted, should this be
highlighted as a keyword or as a method?
* this in copy constructor
this (this) {}
The this parameter, should that be highlighted as a keyword
or as a parameter?
* The __ctfe variable
if (__ctfe) {}
How should this highlighted? I see a couple of alternatives:
- not at all
- as a keyword
- as a special recognized built-in symbol, similar to __LINE__
- as a special recognized library symbol. For example, in the C
bundle many of functions in the standard library are specially
recognized and highlighted differently. This might not apply
here since it's not a library symbol
* __traits identifiers
__traits(allMembers, Foo);
In this case allMembers. Basically the same question and
alternatives as for the __ctfe variable.
* Predefined version identifiers
version (OSX) {}
Again, same a question and alternatives as for the __ctfe
variable.
* Extern identifiers
extern (C)
Again, same a question and alternatives as for the __ctfe
variable.
Am using Textadept, the highlighting is as follows:
highlighted as keyword:
this()
__traits
extern(C) // The extern; C isn't highlighted at all
highlighted as a special recognized built-in symbol, similar to
__LINE__:
version(OSX) // the OSX; version is highlighted as keyword
not highlighted at all:
__ctfe
Re: Advise for syntax highlighting
On Friday, 27 March 2015 at 14:10:22 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2015-03-27 15:03, Chris wrote: Well, it _is_ a keyword. You cannot write a function called this, nor can you use it as a variable name. So yes, it's a keyword = reserved. It depends on how you see it. It's also a special method that just happens to use a keyword as its name. It doesn't have the same meaning as this instead a regular method. Either way, it should be highlighted somehow.
Re: Advise for syntax highlighting
On 2015-03-27 13:33, Chris wrote: Am using Textadept, the highlighting is as follows: highlighted as keyword: this() Why is this highlighted as a keyword? I was more leaning to highlight it as a method. What about the parameter in a copy constructor? __traits What about the identifiers/keywords used as the first argument to __traits? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Advise for syntax highlighting
On 2015-03-27 15:03, Chris wrote: Well, it _is_ a keyword. You cannot write a function called this, nor can you use it as a variable name. So yes, it's a keyword = reserved. It depends on how you see it. It's also a special method that just happens to use a keyword as its name. It doesn't have the same meaning as this instead a regular method. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Advise for syntax highlighting
On Friday, 27 March 2015 at 13:58:03 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2015-03-27 13:33, Chris wrote: Am using Textadept, the highlighting is as follows: highlighted as keyword: this() Why is this highlighted as a keyword? I was more leaning to highlight it as a method. Well, it _is_ a keyword. You cannot write a function called this, nor can you use it as a variable name. So yes, it's a keyword = reserved. What about the parameter in a copy constructor? __traits What about the identifiers/keywords used as the first argument to __traits? Not highlighted.
Re: Advise for syntax highlighting
Personal preferences:
* this in constructor
this () {}
In TextMate functions/methods are highlighted, should this be
highlighted as a keyword or as a method?
method
* this in copy constructor
this (this) {}
The this parameter, should that be highlighted as a keyword
or as a parameter?
keyword (because, well, it is not a parameter)
* The __ctfe variable
if (__ctfe) {}
How should this highlighted? I see a couple of alternatives:
- not at all
- as a keyword
- as a special recognized built-in symbol, similar to __LINE__
- as a special recognized library symbol. For example, in the C
bundle many of functions in the standard library are specially
recognized and highlighted differently. This might not apply
here since it's not a library symbol
not at all. The fact it is reserved is already denoted by __,
otherwise it is just another vairable/symbol.
* __traits identifiers
__traits(allMembers, Foo);
In this case allMembers. Basically the same question and
alternatives as for the __ctfe variable.
this is different from __ctfe as it is actual compiler built-in
with special semantics. special recognized built-in symbol is
probably best fit as it is not listed as keyword either.
* Predefined version identifiers
version (OSX) {}
Again, same a question and alternatives as for the __ctfe
variable.
special recognized built-in symbol
* Extern identifiers
extern (C)
Again, same a question and alternatives as for the __ctfe
variable.
special recognized built-in symbol
Re: Advise for syntax highlighting
On 2015-03-27 16:04, Dicebot wrote: not at all. The fact it is reserved is already denoted by __, otherwise it is just another vairable/symbol. Doesn't this symbol also have special semantics? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Advise for syntax highlighting
On Friday, 27 March 2015 at 15:23:56 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2015-03-27 16:04, Dicebot wrote: not at all. The fact it is reserved is already denoted by __, otherwise it is just another vairable/symbol. Doesn't this symbol also have special semantics? A more pragmatical view would be: if(__ctf ... Was it __ctfe or __ctfe__? Easily answered if it has special highlighting.
Re: Advise for syntax highlighting
Vim is setup as:
On Friday, 27 March 2015 at 10:34:58 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I'm currently updating the TextMate D bundle for D2. I have a
couple of questions for how to highlighting some specific code
or how other editors/IDE's highlight them.
* this in constructor
this () {}
Keyword (function should be fine, vim doesn't highlight those)
In TextMate functions/methods are highlighted, should this be
highlighted as a keyword or as a method?
* this in copy constructor
this (this) {}
Keyword
The this parameter, should that be highlighted as a keyword
or as a parameter?
* The __ctfe variable
if (__ctfe) {}
How should this highlighted? I see a couple of alternatives:
- not at all
- as a keyword
- as a special recognized built-in symbol, similar to __LINE__
- as a special recognized library symbol. For example, in the C
bundle many of functions in the standard library are specially
recognized and highlighted differently. This might not apply
here since it's not a library symbol
Statement [e.g. debug, return, function, with] (that needs fixed)
Probably should be Identifier for consistency [e.g. _arugments,
__vptr, _ctor]
Which I guess is your third (special recognized built-in), though
__LINE__ is a constant in Vim's highlighting [e.g. null,
__VERSION__].
* __traits identifiers
__traits(allMembers, Foo);
In this case allMembers. Basically the same question and
alternatives as for the __ctfe variable.
Identifier
* Predefined version identifiers
version (OSX) {}
Again, same a question and alternatives as for the __ctfe
variable.
Identifier
* Extern identifiers
extern (C)
Again, same a question and alternatives as for the __ctfe
variable.
Identifier
Re: Advise for syntax highlighting
On Friday, 27 March 2015 at 15:23:56 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2015-03-27 16:04, Dicebot wrote: not at all. The fact it is reserved is already denoted by __, otherwise it is just another vairable/symbol. Doesn't this symbol also have special semantics? Not really. It has special value (true within ctfe, false in normal code generation) but otherwise it is just a normal variable.
