James Fowler <boost_list <at> openseaconsulting.com> writes: [snip]
> The capability to create dynamic syntax highlighters could/would > augment (not necessarily replace) the existing Spirit-grammar-based > source modes, right? Or is this referring to some other problem? James, Thanks for your comments. I would suggest replace! I see no point maintaining more than one way of doing things. > Need to work out where to put the built-in highlight scheme > Details please? > I just meant that the quickbook executable needs to locate (on start up) the > built in syntax highlight scheme file. The user could extend this scheme by > supplying their own scheme via the command line, or indeed by editing the > default one. It's not really a problem... > > Why at startup? Why not actually load (include) dynamic syntax > definitions explicitly, something like "[sourcemode foo]" > pulling in "foo.highlight_def_extension"? This could > look first in the local directory, then search relative to a some > standard lookup path (perhaps $BOOST/tools/QuickBook/highlighters ?). > It might allow for more intelligent feedback on errors (i.e., > dependency on a definition file that isn't found). I think it could > even be leveraged to allow BBv2 to treat referenced definitions as > dependencies, triggering a QuickBook "rebuild" if the definition is > updated (which might be much harder to do otherwise, short of any > change to any definition file triggering every .qbk to get reprocessed > whether or not it used that definition). This sounds over-sophisticated to me, for a first version at least, but I do take all your points. I prefer startup since catches syntax errors in the highlight scheme and bad regexes early. But as far as QuickBook end users are concerned this is all implementation detail. > Any comments or thoughts? > > As a means of extending QuickBook to deal with new grammars, it looks > like a great idea to me. I'm not sure I would rush to replace the > existing Spirit C++ and Python grammars, but this would be great for > adding in other oddball stuff. When I was updating quickbook.qbk, it > occurred to me how nice it would be to have syntax highlighting for > showing 'literal' xml/html and even Quickbook syntax. This seems to > be a great way to get that in there. OK, that's another vote for! [snip] > hmm... which macros would those be? These ones! [def :-)[$images/smiley.png]] Thomas ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
