https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138380
--- Comment #15 from Hans-Werner <[email protected]> --- OS: Windows 10 Home (21H2 - 19044.1741) LO: 7.2.7.2 (x64) + 7.3.3.2 (x64) (LibreOffice Community) T e s t D a t a Used for testing the macro basic code colorizing extensions: Attachment: "TestData.txt" TestData as to be seen in the LO Basic IDE: Attachment: "TestData - LO Basic IDE - ScreenPrint Part 1.png" Attachment: "TestData - LO Basic IDE - ScreenPrint Part 2.png" Attachment: "TestData - LO Basic IDE - ScreenPrint Part 3.png" Colors: Blue, Green, Red, Grey (only for comments) and Black (only for # @). E x t e n s i o n s [1] Code Highlighter https://extensions.libreoffice.org/en/extensions/show/code-highlighter Not working, only error message: Ein Scripting Framework Fehler trat während der Ausführung vom Python Skript vnd.sun.star.script:codehighlighter.oxt|python|highlight.py$highlight_qbasic_default?language=Python&location=user:uno_packages auf. Meldung: <class 'KeyError'>: 'codehighlighter.oxt' File "C:\Program Files\LibreOffice\program\pythonscript.py", line 1046, in getScript storageUri = self.provCtx.getStorageUrlFromPersistentUrl( File "C:\Program Files\LibreOffice\program\pythonscript.py", line 417, in getStorageUrlFromPersistentUrl package = self.mapPackageName2Path[ packageName ]" [2] coooder https://extensions.libreoffice.org/en/extensions/show/coooder No basic dialect found were basic macro code is colorized similar to the colorizing of the LO Basic IDE: Attachment: "TestData - coooder - basic4gl.odt" Attachment: "TestData - coooder - blitzbasic.odt" Attachment: "TestData - coooder - freebasic.odt" Attachment: "TestData - coooder - qbasic.odt" Attachment: "TestData - coooder - vb.odt" Attachment: "TestData - coooder - vbnet.odt" [3] Code Colorizer Formatter (Pitonyak) https://extensions.libreoffice.org/en/extensions/show/71 Very good colorizing, but not exactly like "LO Basic IDE" colorizing: + All special characters (outside strings) "( ) [ ] % ! $ : = - + &" are colorized "black", but should be colorized "dark blue". Only "@ #" should be colorized "black". + Variable names enclosed by square brackets are mixed colorized ("dark green" and "dark blue"), but should be colorized "dark green". + "Chr()", "InStr()" and "MsgBox()" are colorized "dark blue", but should be colorized "dark green". + "HEX" and "OCT" numbers are mixed colorized ("black" and "dark green") but should be colorized "red". + "REM", "REm", "Rem" and "rem" are colorized "dark blue", but should be colorized "grey". Attachment: "TestData - Code Colorizer Formatter.odt" [4] CodeColorizerBasic (no extension, basic macro) Uses for colorizing only regular expressions. No errors to be found. But this does not mean, that errors could never be found ... Attachment: "TestData - CodeColorizerBasic.odt" C o r e f e a t u r e ? [1] The Basic IDE is part of the core and therefore the Basic IDE printing feature [File]>[Print] is part of the core too. Isn't it ? [2] The Basic IDE printing feature seems to be a little bit old-fashioned, only black-and-white printing is possible contrary to the colorized basic macro code displayed by the Basic IDE. There's no "What You See Is What You Get" ... [3] Why not to replace the printing feature by an export-to-writer feature ? Colorizing basic macro code outside LO in the same way as is displayed by the Basic IDE is complex, difficult and error-prone. What's about to use directly or indirectly the already existing code colorizer of the Basic-IDE. For example, could it be possible to code some software that exports the displayed basic macro code in a writer document and replaces the SCREEN-color-tags by WRITER-color tags ? [4] The language of the descriptions of the (most) extensions is English. What's about LO users, that don't speak English ? If [3] could be realized, the language would be automatically the language of the LO version the user is using. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
