Add HTML::Mason lexer

[miparnisari]

HTML::Mason is a templating framework, much like ASP.NET Razor. Basically the syntax is this: everything is considered to be HTML code unless a special block, a comment, a substitution tag, a component call, or a line that begins with % is encountered.

See below how the result of this PR compares against IntelliJ's Perl5 plugin.

[gfx]

@miparnisari

Thanks for the contribution, but this lexer can't handle the following snippet:

<%args>
    $x = "</%args>"
</%args>

Rouge can handle nested syntax, although there are a few docs. https://github.com/jneen/rouge/blob/master/lib/rouge/lexers/erb.rb might help you.

[miparnisari]

@gfx

Thanks for the feedback! I've updated the sample and the lexer.

[dblessing]

@miparnisari I am not familiar with this framework so forgive me if this doesn't make any sense. Would it be helpful to subclass the HTML lexer so you don't have to rewrite the HTML-specific pieces? Then simply add on the framework highlighting on top?

[miparnisari]

@dblessing

I changed this lexer to inherit from TemplateLexer. There are some things that this lexer can't handle, like the following CSS

  .dashed {
        background: url("<% $someUrl %>");
   }

But I can live with that. I'm not going to change the CSS lexer for this.

[miparnisari]

@dblessing any chance of merging this soon?

[vidarh]

@miparnisari All of your outstanding pull-requests are on my list of stuff to go through, so sure.. I just went for the easy/low hanging fruit first (which mostly meant the ones with little previous discussion).

[pyrmont]

@miparnisari It might be worth creating a new branch from the current master, adding your changes to that and then pushing a new PR. This one's now got a whole lot of irrelevant files that'll make things more difficult to review in the future.

[miparnisari]

@pyrmont i screwed up while updating my fork haha. But it should be good now, there's only 6 files changed

[pyrmont]

Will try to have a look at this one soon, @miparnisari!

[miparnisari]

@pyrmont any news? :)

[pyrmont]

Sorry, I forgot this one was outstanding (which is supposed to be the point of the needs-review tag, I realise!).

In addition to the comments here, we've now moved to use rule %r/.../ rather than rule /../ to keep RuboCop happy. Could you update these as well? Rules in the form of rule %r(...) are fine and don't need to be updated.

[miparnisari]

@pyrmont I tried to update rules like rule(/(.*?)(?=%>)/m) { delegate @perl } to use the rule %r syntax but couldn't get it work. I'm probably too sleepy to function

[ashmaroli]

I tried to update rules like.. but couldn't get it work.

@miparnisari Have you tried keeping the parentheses:

- rule(/(.*?)(?=%>)/m) { delegate @perl }
+ rule(%r/(.*?)(?=%>)/m) { delegate @perl }

Either ways, the primary reason for adopting the %r syntax was to remove ambiguity warnings from the interpreter regarding constructs such as rule /\w+/ because the / can be seen as a division operator as well.. (??)
But since inline blocks here have parentheses (rule(/(.*?)(?=%>)/m) { delegate @perl }), it shouldn't output a warning at all..

[pyrmont]

Oops! I marked the previous review as approved and then of course noticed something I wanted to comment on.

[pyrmont]

@miparnisari Yep, @ashmaroli is correct. You don't need to worry about adding the %r bit to rule(...)-style rules. What you did looks fine :)

[ashmaroli]

Some minor changes recommended..

[pyrmont]

One more change, sorry!

[pyrmont]

Sorry, one last change!

[pyrmont]

Hey, look! It's finally merged! :D

[miparnisari]

Thanks so much @pyrmont !!! Best way to start my Friday :D