We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
As suggested by Guldoman, we should define a standard descriptive convention for LSP server entries, to keep them neat and tidy.
Guldoman
For the naming convention we could do something like name_ls ( svelte_ls, tailwindcss_ls, ...).
name_ls
svelte_ls
tailwindcss_ls
For the description, we could write something like the following:
---# language_name - lsp_server_name --- __Status__: Untested/Works/Works Partially --- __Site__: https://github.com/user/lsp_server_name --- __Installation__: ... --- __Note: ...
The Perl entry is a good example:
---# Perl - Perlnavigator --- __Status__: Works --- __Site__: https://github.com/bscan/PerlNavigator --- __Installation__: `paru -S perlnavigator`
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
As suggested by
Guldoman
, we should define a standard descriptive convention for LSP server entries, to keep them neat and tidy.For the naming convention we could do something like
name_ls
(svelte_ls
,tailwindcss_ls
, ...).For the description, we could write something like the following:
The Perl entry is a good example:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: