> On Nov 24, 2022, at 6:56 PM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>
>> Basic tokens:
>>
>> delimiter ,.;
>> operator = != ||
>
> From the grammar point of view, both of these are simply infix thingies.
> Defining precisely the difference between them can be a bit more
> delicate, tho. I guess intuitively the idea is that "operator"
> corresponds to some kind of run-time operation whereas "delimiter"
> serves only to figure out where things start and end but doesn't do
> anything in itself.
Maybe think in semantics? If it produces some value, itâs an operator,
otherwise itâs a delimiter/punctuation. And I should have used == instead of =
in the example. I was thinking of ==.
>
> Not clear where the `=` used for definitions (as in "let x = foo in
> bar") should fall. Same for the "," used to construct pairs
> or the conjunction/disjunction in Prolog written `,` and `;`
> respectively :-)
I think stuff like `:` in Haskell (I only know Haskell) can be considered
operator, but `::` would be punctuation. With that said, I didnât put much
thought into delimiters, and it seems to be a slippery slope (as shown in your
`=` example). Maybe we should limit it to the narrowest scope for now, just
things like , ; that truly are delimiting things.
>
>> string-interpolation f"text {variable}"
>> escape-sequence "\n\t\\"
>> function every function identifier
>
> I think we definitely need to distinguish a reference/use of a function
> from a definition of a function. I do want my function identifiers
> highlighted in my function definitions but *not* in my function calls.
Thatâs when assignment/definition come in. See my reply to Randy.
>
>> variable every variable identifier
>
> Same here.
> [ Note that in many languages (e.g. Scheme and C), functions and
> "variables" are the same (i.e. Lisp-1 in the world of Lisp). ]
We can say that if the symbol is used as a function, highlight in function
face, and if it is used as a value, highlight in variables face.
>
>> type every type identifier
>
> And same here as well.
> [ I will spare you the discussion of what should happen for dependently
> typed languages where types are "normal" values. ]
âAnything capitalized in type faceâ, I guess ;-)
>
>> Also, some of the features are very busy, it would be good if we can disable
>> they by default. The default value of font-lock-maximum-decoration is t,
>> meaning use everything, which is not very helpful...
>
> If you compare the "style" of font-lock rules used until now to those
> provide in the new tree-sitter modes, I think it makes sense for
> tree-sitter modes to default to "medium" decorations.
Like setting font-lock-maximum-decoration to a number in major mode body, it
its default value is t? That changes the meaning of t in
font-lock-maximum-decoration. Can we change its default value to 3, and put the
busy features at level 4? I need to survey existing major modes and see how
many levels do they have right now.
Yuan
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4