[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth |
Date: |
Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:09:23 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
> C preprocessor on Javascript like we do). Rigid parsers with nonterminals
> and error productions appear superficially attractive, but using them for
> all aspects of a mode not only leads to the issues you discuss below, but
> also prevents that mode from being reused for similar languages without the
> grammar being re-worked. It's the wrong approach.
I've had a fairly long exchange with CEDET's author several years ago,
where I made a similar point. I clearly fully agree: indentation should
work backward from the indentation point and look at as little of the
buffer as possible. This ensures that if some weird thing is going on
elsewhere in the buffer, it won't interfere.
IOW, the parsing infrastructure (currently limited to syntax-tables and
Lisp) should be able to parse backwards. I'm leaning towards
operator-precedence-grammars for now.
> enough to warrant the terrible backward compatibility problems that would
> be generated by a switch to overlays.
The problem is performance (and no, it's not intrinsic to overlays, but
it's what we have, so until someone revampts the implementation it's
what we have to live with).
> That other programmers have resigned themselves to inferior
> fontification is no argument for Emacs to accept it. Asynchronous
> fontification is completely unacceptable for me, and if it were to
> become commonplace and unavoidable in Emacs, I would simply stay with
> older versions.
I partly agree. I imagine that it'd be OK for the fontification to take
place in 2 steps: one part on-the-fly and another part with a delay
(this other part could be a refinement which could include
warnings/error messages, but also updates to other parts of the code).
Stefan
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, (continued)
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, Chong Yidong, 2009/08/11
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, Daniel Colascione, 2009/08/11
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, Lennart Borgman, 2009/08/11
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, Daniel Colascione, 2009/08/11
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, Lennart Borgman, 2009/08/11
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, joakim, 2009/08/11
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, Lennart Borgman, 2009/08/11
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, joakim, 2009/08/11
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, Stefan Monnier, 2009/08/11
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, Edward O'Connor, 2009/08/11
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, Steve Yegge, 2009/08/11
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, Chong Yidong, 2009/08/12
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, Lennart Borgman, 2009/08/12
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, Steve Yegge, 2009/08/12
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, Stefan Monnier, 2009/08/13
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, Eric M. Ludlam, 2009/08/11
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, Miles Bader, 2009/08/12
- Re: "Font-lock is limited to text matching" is a myth, Xah Lee, 2009/08/12