[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#6286: General delimited literals in ruby-mode patch

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: bug#6286: General delimited literals in ruby-mode patch
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:46:59 +0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1

Hi Stefan,

Thanks for the answers.

On 24.04.2012 19:43, Stefan Monnier wrote:
The maintainership is sadly unclear, indeed.  If someone could try to
bring the two versions closer (and keep them in sync) that would be very
appreciated.  Maybe it is enough to bring changes from the Ruby code to
the Emacs code and not the other way around, but only if there's a clear
understanding that the Ruby version is "deprecated" and won't see new
development.  Also, I'm not sure the Emacs version includes all the
functionality of the current Ruby code, so there's some work to do.

They seem to have a ticket for this, but the comments are all in Japanese: http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/5142
And Babelfish doesn't help much.
If nobody beats me to it, I'm going to ask on the mailing list later.

This ruby-mode is not compatible with Emacs 23 either way.

That might be: I have not verified that it is indeed
backward compatible, I just tried to avoid consciously
introducing incompatibilities.

To be precise, when you load it in 23.3, it complains about prog-mode's function definition being void.

I guess that means we don't need to worry about maintaining the "else" branch when implementing something that requires `syntax-propertize-rules'?

-                       (or (not (eq ?/ c))
-                           (null (nth 0 (ruby-parse-region (or begin 
parse-start) (point)))))
+                       ;; not a regexp or general delimited literal
+                       (null (nth 0 (ruby-parse-region (or begin parse-start) 

Could you explain this part of your patch?

That's a fix for indentation after percent literals delimited with operator characters: %r-abc-. But you seem to have already worked that out.

> BTW, is it really true that "%Q(hello (my) world)" is correct?
> That web-page doesn't clearly mention such nesting.

Yes, it seems to be one of the more obscure features:

irb(main):002:0> %Q(hello [(my]) world)
=> "hello [(my]) world"

It's mentioned here: http://phrogz.net/programmingruby/language.html

(to be continued)

-- Dmitry

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]