Ruby already has this feature, and in my experience syntax highlighters handle it just fine. Here's what vim's default highlighter shows me:
puts "we can #{
["include", "interpolate"].each { |s| puts s }
.select { |s| s.include? "erp" }
# .first
} arbitrary expressions!"
So an editor whose syntax highlighting is based on regular expressions already can't cope with the world as it is. :)
Does anyone reading this know of a tool that successfully highlights python but not ruby?
ijs
________________________________________
From: Python-Dev <python-dev-bounces+ischwabacher=wisc.edu at python.org> on behalf of Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 18:34
To: python-dev at python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] PEP-498: Literal String Formatting
Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Syntax highlighting and in-string expression completion should eventually
> help, once IDEs support it.
Concerning that, this is going to place quite a
burden on syntax highlighters. Doing it properly
will require the ability to parse arbitrary Python
expressions, or at least match nested brackets. An
editor whose syntax hightlighting engine is based
on regular expressions could have trouble with
that.
--
Greg
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev at python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ischwabacher%40wisc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150812/418ec045/attachment.html>
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