Of Course, thx for the ticket That will help to see the Progress 😊
I hat some ideas in my mind, but I think they didn’t worked out. Atm I don’t 
know much about lexer/Parser stuff. Only used JavaCC and ANTLR to generate 
stuff, bringing Syntax highlighting for C# to netbeans, works ok but not 
perfect. 


Regards

Chris

Von: Emilian Bold
Gesendet: Montag, 19. Juni 2017 05:19
An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Provide basic editor features for more file types out of the box[WAS: 
Re: AW: Introductory Email]

I have created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-7 to track
this improvement.

Indeed, I believe using the existing "language files" or "word files" from
other editors and a little NetBeans work we could provide basic editor
features for a whole range of file types.

For example, we would provide Groovy syntax highlighting out of the box and
users would get the full experience by installing the extra plugins.

We could even introduce a mechanism to promote to users the full plugins
(from the Plugin Portal, etc) once they start editing given file types.

--emi

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Christian Lenz <christian.l...@gmx.net>
wrote:

> I like the Idea. It will make stuff easier.
>
> Another Option and I think this would be a great enhancement to simple add
> a new language (maybe only Syntax highlighting to the Editor) is a similar
> functionality as in Visual Studio Code, Sublime Text or Notepad++.
> They uses languages files for syntax highlighting. Of Course they are
> Definition files like grammar and so on, but simpler. Not with the
> generating stuff for JavaCC or ANTLR.
>
> Here are the files which are used for Notepad++
> http://docs.notepad-plus-plus.org/index.php?title=User_
> Defined_Language_Files
>
> Here for Sublime Text: http://docs.sublimetext.info/
> en/latest/extensibility/syntaxdefs.html
>
> Here for Visual Studio Code: https://code.visualstudio.com/
> docs/extensionAPI/language-support (They uses textmate files)
>
> Here for Ultraedit: http://www.ultraedit.com/downloads/extras/wordfiles.
> html#wordfiles
>
> So this will be very handy to have the same Syntax from one of them above
> to use alredy defined files from other Editors (maybe where it has the most
> files) to bring a new language support to NetBeans, which is not supported.
> This will be very simple to have this. More work for the implementation
> first but, download such file in a specific Folder in NetBeans and NetBeans
> will parse  e.g. TCL, C#, F# whatever.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Chris
>
>
> Von: Peter Blemel
> Gesendet: Samstag, 17. Juni 2017 18:25
> An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: Introductory Email
>
> In the context of this discussion the concept is a NetBeans editor module
> generator, in which we auto-code all (or as much as we can) of the
> supporting files necessary to create a NetBeans editor plugin for the
> users' new language.  In that context additional jars shouldn't' be an
> issue, but of course if we're going to go to all of that time and effort
> then it should be able to emit code for other purposes.
>
>
> With that in mind I have other applications that are probably already
> suffering from bit rot.  I haven't had to write a grammar in quite a while,
> and was unfamiliar with ANTLR so I had to do some reading.  After browsing
> a few web sites I like that ANTLRs output looks cleaner, can target
> multiple languages, and that there appear to be significantly more (and
> more robust) tools already available. I found an old JavaCC branch
> supporting C/C++ targets but it doesn't appear to be supported. I didn't
> look into if the other ANTLR target languages require additional libraries,
> or had time to explore how much Netbeans support is already available.
>
>
> I hope to find time this summer to try writing a new parser (maybe just a
> toy), but so far in general ANTLR appears to be a better choice if we're
> going to develop an editor generator.
>
>
> Peter
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 2:52 AM
>
> I tend to agree but a difference that can be important depending on
> the context is that JavaCC doesn't have any external runtime
> dependencies, whereas ANTLR requires a few jars.
>
> -Bertrand
>
>

Reply via email to