-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add Ada support #949
Add Ada support #949
Conversation
Hi @Lucretia Every self-respecting syntax highlighter needs support for Ada. Thanks for your contribution! The only difference between the various Ada versions is the keyword token. Would it be possible to create one language definition simply called |
I had these as one language file (with each language defined as they are now) originally, but due to the way the examples.html/js worked ending up splitting them up. I would be possible to have one definition with all keywords included for all, I suppose, but this would then mean that the interface keyword would be highlighted as a keyword even when it's not, prior to Ada 2005. |
Every language has to be in a separate file that is correct.
Would that be so bad? The Prism language definitions don't have to be perfect. They should be small and fast. How likely is it, that somebody has some Ada-83 code with a variable named But I can see your point. Let's leave it as separate languages for now. I'll do a proper review this weekend. |
I'm also in favor of merging all those variants into one single language (or maybe two if there is a real need). That's what we did for Pascal for example, because having too many languages would be tedious for both the maintainers and the users. |
Thanks for this PR @Lucretia! |
I merged them manually. |
I've included support and examples for Ada83, Ada95, Ada 2005 and Ada 2012.