>> (Apparently there's no return "longest match" principle between different >> rules.)
> Latest match wins, by design. See :help :syn-priority Yeah, I feared so. Would it be a sensible request to ask for a vim-syntax change here? (I'm aware that this could cause not only severe efforts but might also have undesired influences on existing syntax files, unless it's an option that could be chosen/activated in parallel.) >> [ context dependency? ] > Unfortunately there are no simple tag boundaries with whitespace as > taggle separators so changing the priorities will only get us so far. [...] Okay. - And I see the hassles and suboptimal workarounds. - So I'd think that we better accept (for the moment) the infelicities with that handful of tokens that produce inappropriate highlighting in the special case of using spaces here. > SUPPER stropping avoids this so things will be simpler there. I'd > like to eventually support all stropping regimes so that even the > ancient code can at least be read comfortably even if none of the > modern compilers support it. However, it appears this file was only > ever intended to support Genie's default UPPER stropping so I think > it's fine to just target that for now. Yes, and that would also be my suggestion to reach a milestone here. > It would be nice if we could > fully support ga68 for the release of GCC 16 but I suspect we're out > of time. This is actually a topic I intended to ask once we have the first Algol 68 syntax-file ready and made publicly available... How could Algol 68's files syntax highlighting be parameterized to accept various stopping regimes. (I'm not sure but seem to recall that the GNU Algol 68 project has also an '.a68' file extension but uses a different stropping as default.) A solution might get tricky? > What exactly is the "algol68_traditional" variable attempting to > achieve? I assume the "traditional" refers to the highlighting and > not the language? If so, that would normally be called something like > "algol68_prelude". Frankly, I cannot tell what that means. It's a remnant from Neville's original version. - Personally I think the term is misleading, given that all the matches are included in that section, and that there's not only the "traditional" features supported but also the features imported from those third-party libraries and all Genie extensions. I think a subsequent "0.5" release (that might cover more stropping regimes or not) could also be cleaned up by more strictly separating the various feature sets, if possible by technical means (if-sections). > I think I've merged all your latest changes. Thanks! - When do you think will the Algol 68 support be available in the repository for public use? Janis -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/AS8PR02MB104098171090DAB3348CE1C11F3232%40AS8PR02MB10409.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com.
