Update syntax highlighting #4
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Support modern features and drop support for obsolete syntax. Add folding support to class-level clauses, feature declarations, strings and comments. Add support for Liberty Eiffel with the eiffel_liberty config variable.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Here's a reasonably significant update to the Eiffel syntax highlighting file.
It adds support for what I believe to be the current state of both ES Eiffel and Liberty Eiffel.
I've generally dropped support for clearly obsolete syntax and checked that the current releases are supported but there might be a few outlying cases I've missed. If you'd like I could add support for the obsolete features behind a flag otherwise highlighting them as errors.
I've also started to add folding support based on the 'syntax' method.
The file defaults to supporting ES syntax with Liberty available when the eiffel_liberty variable is set.
It seems to me that the syntax is not different enough to warrant breaking the files up to support the two dialects separately but I could do that if you'd prefer.
My understanding is that with a few major well known exceptions that Liberty intends to move in the direction of supporting ECMA where possible and they even appear to have a GSOC proposal for this work. So hopefully the syntax differences will decrease with time.
Finally, if you'd like to keep a more lightweight approach based on the current file that's no problem. I'd be happy to maintain this separately.
Fixes issue #2