You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Not sure if this is really a feature request, or more a request of how to configure things with proper syntax matching...
In C++ nested templates can get a bit ugly to read like a<b<c,e,>,g,> and so on... Therefore using rainbow parens for this can be useful... however there is the tricky part that < and > are part of comparison operations, and thus are for one, not always balanced, and then also in places where you don't want this to happen.
As this plugin is kind of a syntax highlight configuration generator, I wonder if it would be possible to restrict to certain syntactic constructs, or at least "reset" the balancing search if e.g. encountering a closing ) of an if( a > b) statement, or a final ; of a vector> v; delcaration or the : and { of a template struct foo : bar { }; definition...
( alternatively what would be already very helpful I guess is toggling the inclusion of < and > for a short amount of time when you really need the better readability )
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Not sure if this is really a feature request, or more a request of how to configure things with proper syntax matching...
In C++ nested templates can get a bit ugly to read like a<b<c,e,>,g,> and so on... Therefore using rainbow parens for this can be useful... however there is the tricky part that < and > are part of comparison operations, and thus are for one, not always balanced, and then also in places where you don't want this to happen.
As this plugin is kind of a syntax highlight configuration generator, I wonder if it would be possible to restrict to certain syntactic constructs, or at least "reset" the balancing search if e.g. encountering a closing ) of an if( a > b) statement, or a final ; of a vector> v; delcaration or the : and { of a template struct foo : bar { }; definition...
( alternatively what would be already very helpful I guess is toggling the inclusion of < and > for a short amount of time when you really need the better readability )
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: