[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Syntactic fontification of diff hunks
From: |
Yuri Khan |
Subject: |
Re: Syntactic fontification of diff hunks |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Aug 2018 01:34:04 +0700 |
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 12:50 AM Juri Linkov <address@hidden> wrote:
> I think “after” should have priority over “before” in context because the
> main goal of reading patches is to see how code will look after changes,
> so in this case ‘(bar baz)’ should be highlighted as a string.
Yes, that is sensible.
I see another potential issue. In your patch above, the whole hunk is
fontified as a whole, with all its context lines, deleted lines, and
added lines. A change on the line that opens a multiline string will
disrupt syntax until the end of hunk:
(def foo ()
- "Lorem ipsum
+ "Cthulhu fhtagn
dolor sit amet")
A more robust approach would be to fontify separately the “after”
version by taking context + added lines and “before” by taking context
+ deleted lines. Then use fontification from “before” for deleted
lines, and from “after” for context and added lines.