Hello, David! On 6/25/07, David Sitsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can you do a comparison between Kate and webc++ on something a little > smaller? Say something with roughly 1000 SLOCs. I'd be curious to > see what the difference is.
I have an idea about using external program to do syntax highlight. Probably we should not stuck to only one (webcpp or other) but provide generic layer for use external highlighters. I think, we could use any one that: * builds css-formatted code by using <span class="style"> and closes tags correctly; * don't add any symbols other than escaped standard one (lt, gt, amp); * can behave as line filter (get text from stdin and output it to stdout). To add such highlighter support we need is to provide its description: * program name and command line template; * correspondence between file externsions and program's language names; * description of header we should strip out from highlighter output; * correspondence between program's styles and our styles. In my Debian there are some tools that meet these requirements: * highlight: http://www.andre-simon.de/doku/highlight/en/highlight.html * GNU source-hightlight: http://www.gnu.org/software/src-highlite/source-highlight.html * Web C Plus Plus: http://webcpp.sourceforge.net To allow usage of pure Perl highlighter (Kate engine) it seems to be a good idea to name styles after its standard ones. -- Nikita V. Borodikhin, System Administrator NIKB-RIPN BNV7-RIPE Registered Linux user #256562 with the Linux Counter ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Codestriker-user mailing list Codestriker-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/codestriker-user
