Ah, good point - I was not properly handling the case where the first
unmatched parenthesis was the first character on the line.
Also, the close script line is something of a special case, but it's
easy enough to check for:
With that fix and this change, I'd do something like this:
firstunmatched=:3 :0
if. ')' -:&(-.&' ') y do. #y return. end.
q=. unquoted=. -.~:/\y=''''
c=. uncommented=. -. +./\ q * 'NB.' E. y
n=. parendepth=. +/\q*c*-/'()'=/y
if. 0 < {: n do.
(n i. _1) <. 1 i:~0 1 E. 0,n
else.
n i. _1
end.
)
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:05 PM, bill lam <[email protected]> wrote:
> your verb seemed to find unmatched ) only, e.g. failed for
> '(()' or '(()('
> also a line of ) and whitespace belongs to class 'close definition' and
> should not be flagged as mismatch.
>
>
> On 27 Dec, 2016 2:42 am, "Raul Miller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "containing control words" but code
>> readability issues are usually a call for better code.
>>
>> For this, perhaps (warning: lightly tested code):
>>
>> firstunmatched=:3 :0
>> q=. unquoted=. -.~:/\y=''''
>> c=. uncommented=. -. +./\ q * 'NB.' E. y
>> n=. parendepth=. +/\q*c*-/'()'=/y
>> if. 0 < {: n do.
>> (n i. _1) <. 1+1 i:~0 1 E. n
>> else.
>> n i. _1
>> end.
>> )
>>
>> In other words: ignoring quoted and commented parenthesis, look for
>> the first occurrence of either an unbalanced right parenthesis or an
>> unbalanced left parenthesis.
>>
>> Let me know, though, if you see any flaws in this implementation.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Raul
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > I don't think it is reasonable to treat ')' and 'NB.' as containing
>> control
>> > words. It makes the code very hard to read.
>> >
>> > Showing the mismatched parenthesis is important enough that it might be
>> > better to have it even with this deficiency, but it IS a deficiency and
>> > should be treated as a bug to be fixed someday.
>> >
>> > Henry Rich
>> >
>> > On 12/26/2016 11:48 AM, bill lam wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I double checked with j602, it has no problem in high lighting
>> >> the unmatched )( in
>> >>
>> >> a '+' ((mno - rst) % b NB. )unmatched paren
>> >> ^
>> >> a '+' ((mno - rst) % b ')' NB. )unmatched paren
>> >> ^
>> >> and
>> >>
>> >> '(' (=:))
>> >> ^
>> >> But this is matched and is correct
>> >> a '+' ((mno - rst) % b ')') NB. )unmatched paren
>> >>
>> >> I think it is reasonable to omit this pattern for
>> >> syntax high-lighting.
>> >>
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
