|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Re: Algorithm in electric-pair--unbalanced-strings-p unsuitable for CC Mode |
Date: | Tue, 9 Jul 2019 18:18:59 +0300 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 |
On 09.07.2019 13:54, João Távora wrote:
How can this be disparagement? It's a simple statement of fact. If you didn'tbreak things, what did you fix and what are you fixing? Is "break" the word that you associate with disparagement, maybe? I admit it's a word that I hear very often in software engineering, I didn't invent it.
Since the "correct" behavior is a matter of interpretation here, who broke what is a matter of interpretation. And I'm sure you can agree that "you broke XXX" can be interpreted emotionally. There's no real need to repeat that a few times, especially while certain someone is working on "fixing" it.
To get back to Clement's question (and maybe I'm just restating your opinion here), I think:
* Fontifying "broken" strings only until EOL might be beneficial, at least in certain languages, where it's consistent with the syntax. The result will be less "blinking".
* It doesn't seem trivial to implement without breaking a lot of pair-matching and quote-matching functionality, because both font-lock and the latter features depend on parse status, and buffer can be fontified in chunks, etc.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |