> I tried to figure out a pattern (are they "types"? "Stuff used to declare > variables"?) and had actually started making a list of which things were > "variable stuff", moving not only reg and wire but also wand, wor, tri, tri0, > tri1, realtype, signed, (unsigned), etc., but eventually I realized that (1) > I don't know the standard well enough to see which of these make sense to be > in a separate category of keywords; (2) the whole idea of "type" is a bit > fuzzy, since everything in Verilog is basically "array of bits"; the stuff in > that list is more like "qualifiers" mostly; (3) I have no idea what the > original idea of having a separate list of keywords was meant for, since it's > not mentioned anywhere, so I can't decided what should go in there and what > shouldn't; and (4) overall I see no point in having two lists of keywords > (neither C nor C++ seem to have those so I can't think of an analogy). So I > thought it would be easiest to just put everything in a single category of > keywords.
It's really up to the contributor of filetype support. For instance, java uses ```ini primary=abstract assert break case catch class const continue default do else enum exports extends final finally for goto if implements import instanceof interface module native new non-sealed open opens package permits private protected provides public record requires return sealed static strictfp super switch synchronized this throw throws to transient transitive try uses var volatile when while with yield true false null secondary=boolean byte char double float int long short void # documentation keywords for javadoc doccomment=author deprecated exception param return see serial serialData serialField since throws todo version typedefs= ``` Those "secondary" keywords are normal keywords, just defining primitive types and are highlighted differently which kind of makes sense. But if you feel there's no such analogy in Verilog, it's probably best to have them all in one group. > Honestly I don't quite understand what wordchars does, but it felt right to > add the $ there. I have kind of the same feeling ;-). See https://github.com/geany/geany/issues/4038 > Personally I think it's good to see $finish and $display etc highlighted as > "this is something important", despite them not being keywords strictly > speaking, so the current behavior is good. My question was whether to add the > rest of functions starting with $ that are in the standard. I have no idea > what most of those functions do, to be honest. Then I'd say leave it as it is. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/4037#issuecomment-2469288023 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <geany/geany/pull/4037/[email protected]>
