@techee commented on this pull request.
> + { 2, "types_basic", FALSE },
+ { 3, "types_composite", FALSE },
+ { 4, "types_domain", FALSE },
+ { 5, "types_exceptions", FALSE },
If I understand it correctly, TRUE indicates the group into which dynamically
obtained "keywords" from ctags are mapped. For C it's the various types like
ScintillaObject or GeanyDocument, etc. which are then highlighted in the editor
with the given style. I haven't seen it used by any scripting language though
and there's a danger that the mapping of the given language, in our case
```C
static TMParserMapEntry map_RAKU[] = {
{'c', tm_tag_class_t}, // class
{'g', tm_tag_struct_t}, // grammar
{'m', tm_tag_method_t}, // method
{'o', tm_tag_namespace_t}, // module
{'p', tm_tag_package_t}, // package
{'r', tm_tag_class_t}, // role
{'u', tm_tag_variable_t}, // rule
{'b', tm_tag_method_t}, // submethod
{'s', tm_tag_function_t}, // subroutine
{'t', tm_tag_variable_t}, // token
};
```
doesn't correctly match the hard-coded "typedef" types from the tag manager:
```C
static TMTagType TM_GLOBAL_TYPE_MASK =
tm_tag_class_t | tm_tag_enum_t | tm_tag_interface_t |
tm_tag_struct_t | tm_tag_typedef_t | tm_tag_union_t |
tm_tag_namespace_t;
```
(like mapping `grammar` to `struct` in the raku case - it probably is alright,
I guess it's kind of type, but there isn't a guaranteed 1:1 correspondence)
Also, these types don't appear in function prototypes or variable declarations
as these are dynamically-typed languages so I think it's not really that useful
to have them colorized.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/3169#discussion_r1529346339
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <geany/geany/pull/3169/review/[email protected]>
