Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

On 2016-08-31 10:47 PM, Matthew Brush wrote: On 2016-08-31 10:08 PM, Thomas Martitz wrote: Am 31.08.2016 um 17:26 schrieb Lex Trotman: I think we all agree that help of language-specific plugins is desired/required. No need to restate "we need language specific support" all the time. We just

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

On 2016-08-31 10:08 PM, Thomas Martitz wrote: Am 31.08.2016 um 17:26 schrieb Lex Trotman: I think we all agree that help of language-specific plugins is desired/required. No need to restate "we need language specific support" all the time. We just disagree on how the language-specific

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

On 2016-08-31 10:00 PM, Thomas Martitz wrote: Am 01.09.2016 um 05:42 schrieb Lex Trotman: On 31 August 2016 at 11:27, Matthew Brush wrote: With the `LexClang.so` dynamic lexer I made, dynamic lexers seemed not to fit well (too isolated, too many assumptions that it's a

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

Am 01.09.2016 um 05:42 schrieb Lex Trotman: On 31 August 2016 at 11:27, Matthew Brush wrote: With the `LexClang.so` dynamic lexer I made, dynamic lexers seemed not to fit well (too isolated, too many assumptions that it's a simple dumb lexer and not a semantic-based on,

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

On 31 August 2016 at 11:27, Matthew Brush wrote: > On 2016-08-30 06:43 AM, Colomban Wendling wrote: >> >> Le 29/08/2016 à 05:14, Matthew Brush a écrit : >>> >>> […] >>> >>> Syntax Highlighting >>> --- >>> >>> Most likely using an API based on/similar to

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

> > I think we all agree that help of language-specific plugins is > desired/required. No need to restate "we need language specific support" all > the time. > > We just disagree on how the language-specific knowledge is transported to > Geany, other plugins and the user. > Well, I read your

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Thomas Martitz wrote: > Am 31.08.2016 um 13:03 schrieb Jiří Techet: > > >> >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Thomas Martitz > > wrote: >> >> Am 30.08.2016 um 21:10 schrieb Jiří Techet: >> >>

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

On 1 September 2016 at 00:55, Thomas Martitz wrote: > Am 31.08.2016 um 16:52 schrieb Lex Trotman: >> >> On 1 September 2016 at 00:43, Thomas Martitz wrote: >>> >>> Am 31.08.2016 um 16:39 schrieb Matthew Brush: I can't speak to all compiler

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

Am 31.08.2016 um 16:52 schrieb Lex Trotman: On 1 September 2016 at 00:43, Thomas Martitz wrote: Am 31.08.2016 um 16:39 schrieb Matthew Brush: I can't speak to all compiler libraries, but at least libclang, libpython and libvala "compile" the source (well just the front-end

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

Am 31.08.2016 um 15:31 schrieb Lex Trotman: I love Lex's ADL example, C++ can seem just crazy :) Crazy like a Fox, makes the compiler near impossible, but makes lots of stuff "just work" :) So a much simpler example then (using C syntax to explain since we all know it, but could be any

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

On 1 September 2016 at 00:43, Thomas Martitz wrote: > Am 31.08.2016 um 16:39 schrieb Matthew Brush: >> >> >> I can't speak to all compiler libraries, but at least libclang, libpython >> and libvala "compile" the source (well just the front-end of the compiler is >> needed).

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

Am 31.08.2016 um 16:39 schrieb Matthew Brush: I can't speak to all compiler libraries, but at least libclang, libpython and libvala "compile" the source (well just the front-end of the compiler is needed). They literally use the built-in compiler front ends to understand the code. In the

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

On 2016-08-31 06:30 AM, Thomas Martitz wrote: Am 31.08.2016 um 13:23 schrieb Lex Trotman: [...] Both of these are C++ specific semantics, (types generated by template instantiation and argument dependent lookup). I don't believe TM should be be expanded to include such knowledge. Why not?

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

> Why not? TM could have separate tags for each known template instance and > know which of these applies to someAs, based on information provided by a > ft-plugin. Then the rest would work. Yes, if Geany can be made to understand that `vector` and `vector< int >` and `vector ` are all the same

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

> I love Lex's ADL example, C++ can seem just crazy :) Crazy like a Fox, makes the compiler near impossible, but makes lots of stuff "just work" :) So a much simpler example then (using C syntax to explain since we all know it, but could be any language): int a; {

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

Am 31.08.2016 um 13:23 schrieb Lex Trotman: [...] But to be able to do 2) and 3) accurately needs more knowledge of each language semantics than is currently available in Geany or tagmanager. That's right. But it doesn't mean the features should be *entirely* moved into plugin space. TM

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

Le 31/08/2016 à 13:22, Thomas Martitz a écrit : > Am 31.08.2016 um 13:03 schrieb Jiří Techet: >> […] >> >> No, performance is a very valid point. Tag updates don't happen in a >> background thread in Geany but rather on the main thread (and changing >> this would require lots of modifications as

Re: [Geany-Devel] [FT-plugins] Proposed "Features"

All I really wanted was a way to disable > Scintilla's lexer (ie. switch it to `SCLEX_CONTAINER`) without changing the > filetype in Geany, and without doing it behind Geany's back from the plugin. In fact some of the tools using scintilla and which provide a richer styling do exactly that,