RE: Syntax Highlighting in PicoLisp
Hey David>> From: Henrik Sarvell>> FWIW, I've attached what my emacs looks like.>> Hey, how'd you take a screen shot of my emacs?!>> ;)I never had to take a screenshot in emacs OS, as I use it within a debiancontainer, but this probably helps you:http://www.emacswiki.org/ScreenShotEmacs is a great OS, it just lacks a good text editor ;)You can use vi bindings in emacs: http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Evil
RE: Syntax Highlighting in PicoLisp
> From: Henrik Sarvell > FWIW, I've attached what my emacs looks like. Hey, how'd you take a screen shot of my emacs?! ;)
RE: Syntax Highlighting in PicoLisp
Hello, Just for everybody's information :-) The VIM syntax files are also present in the distribution .zip file. I implemented them based on an early version from Kriangkrai Soatthiyanont. They are located in lib/vim. I believe Alex did some improvements to it in the meanwhile. Kind Regards, Pedro> From: hsarv...@gmail.com > To: picolisp@software-lab.de > Subject: Re: Syntax Highlighting in PicoLisp > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:20:18 +0100 > > I wasn't precent in the IRC but this seems to be a non-issue, if > people want syntax highlighting they can implement the VIM files > themselves, for emacs there are the files in lib/el. > > FWIW, I've attached what my emacs looks like. > > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:02 AM, wrote: > > Hi List :-) > > > >> Hi Christophe, > >> > >>> > I'm opposed to syntax highlighting of symbols in PicoLisp. > >>> > >>> Wao, this is quite an introduction for a post on the list ! > >>> I guess that it is not spontaneous and may be triggered by a discussion > >>> on IRC? > >> > >> Correct :) Though incidentally not IRC this time, but an e-mail > >> conversation. > > > > Maybe add a comment at the beginning regarding this, so we know too ;-) > > > >> Anyway, this issue popped up relatively often during the last years. My > >> impression was that some people naturally expect syntax highlighting, or > >> even demand it, and I felt I should also make my position clear. > > > > There is nothing to demand, People need to learn that. > > Don't let them bugger you so much, Alex. > > > > It's to be expected that people ask for things they are used to from > > whatever corner of programming they come from, and we (as a community) > > should surely improve the current state of documentation and availability > > of knowlegde surrounding PicoLisp. But I personally don't see this as the > > responsibility and personal task of Alex! The amount of work he puts into > > PicoLisp and the huge efforts he makes to answer questions should be more > > then enough. > > > > PicoLisp is Free Software, so there is nothing to stop people to use it > > however they like. In my eyes, this also means there is NO excuse to not > > do that. No need to harass Alex, I'm pretty sure there is a way to achieve > > everything with PicoLisp by doing some research (rtfm and searching the > > mailinglist archive) or by hacking it together yourself. > > > > This comment I mean not just in the context of syntax style, but also > > about other "missing functionality" and "missing library" - just find a > > way yourself! And then contribute something back, share it on the mailing > > list or in the wiki on picolisp.com or just put it on your own web > > presence. (Alex is doing exactly that all the time - some others too). > > > > Back to topic: > > There are many editors with general lisp syntax highlighting there, even > > the emacs extensions in the official PicoLisp distribution contains one for > > picolisp. > > That one I actually use, but mainly as typo-detector, > > the bigger benefit I get from paredit-mode, which handles indentation and is > > really great for editing S-Expressions. > > > > For other editors, there are often simple ways to even write your own > > syntax highlighting config file, e.g. for nano (google for nanorc). > > > >>> More precisely, concerning the language I’m basing on PicoLisp, which > >>> is > >>> dedicated to beginners, I'd like to say: > >>> - Coloring transient symbols is important to help students spot quote > >>> errors > >>> (which may be trivial, but can occur with people not used to > >>> programming) > > > > Good point, but then you probably want a syntax highlighting customized to > > your "language based on PicoLisp", and not just for "Alex standard way to > > do it". Lisp evolves with the current user, so I think thats the overall > > reason why there can't be _one_right_way_. > > > > Have all a nice day and good start into the week, > > Andreas
Re: Syntax Highlighting in PicoLisp
I wasn't precent in the IRC but this seems to be a non-issue, if people want syntax highlighting they can implement the VIM files themselves, for emacs there are the files in lib/el. FWIW, I've attached what my emacs looks like. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:02 AM, wrote: > Hi List :-) > >> Hi Christophe, >> >>> > I'm opposed to syntax highlighting of symbols in PicoLisp. >>> >>> Wao, this is quite an introduction for a post on the list ! >>> I guess that it is not spontaneous and may be triggered by a discussion >>> on IRC? >> >> Correct :) Though incidentally not IRC this time, but an e-mail >> conversation. > > Maybe add a comment at the beginning regarding this, so we know too ;-) > >> Anyway, this issue popped up relatively often during the last years. My >> impression was that some people naturally expect syntax highlighting, or >> even demand it, and I felt I should also make my position clear. > > There is nothing to demand, People need to learn that. > Don't let them bugger you so much, Alex. > > It's to be expected that people ask for things they are used to from > whatever corner of programming they come from, and we (as a community) > should surely improve the current state of documentation and availability > of knowlegde surrounding PicoLisp. But I personally don't see this as the > responsibility and personal task of Alex! The amount of work he puts into > PicoLisp and the huge efforts he makes to answer questions should be more > then enough. > > PicoLisp is Free Software, so there is nothing to stop people to use it > however they like. In my eyes, this also means there is NO excuse to not > do that. No need to harass Alex, I'm pretty sure there is a way to achieve > everything with PicoLisp by doing some research (rtfm and searching the > mailinglist archive) or by hacking it together yourself. > > This comment I mean not just in the context of syntax style, but also > about other "missing functionality" and "missing library" - just find a > way yourself! And then contribute something back, share it on the mailing > list or in the wiki on picolisp.com or just put it on your own web > presence. (Alex is doing exactly that all the time - some others too). > > Back to topic: > There are many editors with general lisp syntax highlighting there, even > the emacs extensions in the official PicoLisp distribution contains one for > picolisp. > That one I actually use, but mainly as typo-detector, > the bigger benefit I get from paredit-mode, which handles indentation and is > really great for editing S-Expressions. > > For other editors, there are often simple ways to even write your own > syntax highlighting config file, e.g. for nano (google for nanorc). > >>> More precisely, concerning the language I’m basing on PicoLisp, which >>> is >>> dedicated to beginners, I'd like to say: >>> - Coloring transient symbols is important to help students spot quote >>> errors >>> (which may be trivial, but can occur with people not used to >>> programming) > > Good point, but then you probably want a syntax highlighting customized to > your "language based on PicoLisp", and not just for "Alex standard way to > do it". Lisp evolves with the current user, so I think thats the overall > reason why there can't be _one_right_way_. > > Have all a nice day and good start into the week, > Andreas
Re: Syntax Highlighting in PicoLisp
Hi List :-)> Hi Christophe,>>> > I'm opposed to syntax highlighting of symbols in PicoLisp. Wao, this is quite an introduction for a post on the list !>> I guess that it is not spontaneous and may be triggered by a discussion>> on IRC?>> Correct :) Though incidentally not IRC this time, but an e-mail> conversation.Maybe add a comment at the beginning regarding this, so we know too ;-)> Anyway, this issue popped up relatively often during the last years. My> impression was that some people naturally expect syntax highlighting, or> even demand it, and I felt I should also make my position clear.There is nothing to demand, People need to learn that.Don't let them bugger you so much, Alex.It's to be expected that people ask for things they are used to fromwhatever corner of programming they come from, and we (as a community)should surely improve the current state of documentation and availabilityof knowlegde surrounding PicoLisp. But I personally don't see this as theresponsibility and personal task of Alex! The amount of work he puts intoPicoLisp and the huge efforts he makes to answer questions should be morethen enough.PicoLisp is Free Software, so there is nothing to stop people to use ithowever they like. In my eyes, this also means there is NO excuse to notdo that. No need to harass Alex, I'm pretty sure there is a way to achieveeverything with PicoLisp by doing some research (rtfm and searching themailinglist archive) or by hacking it together yourself.This comment I mean not just in the context of syntax style, but alsoabout other "missing functionality" and "missing library" - just find away yourself! And then contribute something back, share it on the mailinglist or in the wiki on picolisp.com or just put it on your own webpresence. (Alex is doing exactly that all the time - some others too).Back to topic:There are many editors with general lisp syntax highlighting there, eventhe emacs extensions in the official PicoLisp distribution contains one for picolisp.That one I actually use, but mainly as typo-detector,the bigger benefit I get from paredit-mode, which handles indentation and is really great for editing S-Expressions.For other editors, there are often simple ways to even write your ownsyntax highlighting config file, e.g. for nano (google for nanorc).>> More precisely, concerning the language I’m basing on PicoLisp, which>> is>> dedicated to beginners, I'd like to say:>> - Coloring transient symbols is important to help students spot quote>> errors>> (which may be trivial, but can occur with people not used to>> programming)Good point, but then you probably want a syntax highlighting customized toyour "language based on PicoLisp", and not just for "Alex standard way todo it". Lisp evolves with the current user, so I think thats the overallreason why there can't be _one_right_way_.Have all a nice day and good start into the week,Andreas
Re: Syntax Highlighting in PicoLisp
Hi Christophe, > > I'm opposed to syntax highlighting of symbols in PicoLisp. > > Wao, this is quite an introduction for a post on the list ! > I guess that it is not spontaneous and may be triggered by a discussion on > IRC? Correct :) Though incidentally not IRC this time, but an e-mail conversation. Anyway, this issue popped up relatively often during the last years. My impression was that some people naturally expect syntax highlighting, or even demand it, and I felt I should also make my position clear. > > As I understand it, syntax highlighting marks symbols which are > > "keywords" in the language. However, PicoLisp doesn't have keywords. > > There are just "symbols". > > I perfectly agree with this, even though syntax highlighting may not > be restricted to symbols (no scoop here). Yes, as I said, comments. There isn't much more syntax to Lisp, except for the parentheses. Perhaps read-macros. > > experimented with strings (see *Tsm, transient symbol markup), but these > > are also symbols, with possible meaning depending on the context. And > > strings are clearly visible anyway. > > Clearly visible, at a certain level, indeed, but it can help to spot mistakes. True, unbalanced quotes. So strings indeed make sense. *Tsm gave a clear indication (underlining). > More precisely, concerning the language I’m basing on PicoLisp, which is > dedicated to beginners, I'd like to say: > - Coloring transient symbols is important to help students spot quote errors > (which may be trivial, but can occur with people not used to programming) Makes sense. ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Syntax Highlighting in PicoLisp
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Alexander Burger wrote: > Hello list, Hello ! > I'm opposed to syntax highlighting of symbols in PicoLisp. Wao, this is quite an introduction for a post on the list ! I guess that it is not spontaneous and may be triggered by a discussion on IRC? > As I understand it, syntax highlighting marks symbols which are > "keywords" in the language. However, PicoLisp doesn't have keywords. > There are just "symbols". I perfectly agree with this, even though syntax highlighting may not be restricted to symbols (no scoop here). > It has built-in symbols, yes, but that doesn't make them special in any > way. > […] > This is the reason why I use syntax highlighting only for comments in my > editor. Comments can indeed be detected lexically. I've also > experimented with strings (see *Tsm, transient symbol markup), but these > are also symbols, with possible meaning depending on the context. And > strings are clearly visible anyway. Clearly visible, at a certain level, indeed, but it can help to spot mistakes. More precisely, concerning the language I’m basing on PicoLisp, which is dedicated to beginners, I'd like to say: - Coloring transient symbols is important to help students spot quote errors (which may be trivial, but can occur with people not used to programming)
Syntax Highlighting in PicoLisp
Hello list, I'm opposed to syntax highlighting of symbols in PicoLisp. As I understand it, syntax highlighting marks symbols which are "keywords" in the language. However, PicoLisp doesn't have keywords. There are just "symbols". It has built-in symbols, yes, but that doesn't make them special in any way. Lexically all symbols are equivalent, and their meaning depends on the (dynamic) context, not on their (static) name. A symbol might represent a function, or a piece of data. And functions might be redefined or bound any time. If the editor detects, say, "if", and highlights it as a flow-function, it may be wrong because it can be a symbol in a list of terms and means "interface". Or "car" may refer to a vehicle. Syntax highlighting for symbols can't be done "right". Being correct in 99 percent of the cases - but wrong in 1 percent - is fatal. If something cannot be done right, it shouldn't be done at all. This is the reason why I use syntax highlighting only for comments in my editor. Comments can indeed be detected lexically. I've also experimented with strings (see *Tsm, transient symbol markup), but these are also symbols, with possible meaning depending on the context. And strings are clearly visible anyway. ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
