Michael T. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problems I'm seeing are the ugly white-on-red for underlines, the
lack of any kind of differentiation for keywords/operators/etc. vs.
identifiers (although some punctuation is recognized, specifically curly
braces), comments not being noted, etc.
On Tue, 2007-05-06 at 13:05 +0200, Georg Neis wrote:
Michael T. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problems I'm seeing are the ugly white-on-red for underlines, the
lack of any kind of differentiation for keywords/operators/etc. vs.
identifiers (although some punctuation is recognized,
On Tue, 2007-05-06 at 13:05 +0200, Georg Neis wrote:
Michael T. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problems I'm seeing are the ugly white-on-red for underlines, the
lack of any kind of differentiation for keywords/operators/etc. vs.
identifiers (although some punctuation is recognized,
Michael,
Michael T. Richter wrote:
So, I guess I'm back to my original question: where can I find a decent
editor that can do syntax highlighting out of the box for literate
Haskell? (Or, alternatively, where can I find a syntax-highlighting
editor I can expand the syntax handling of on my
On 05/06/07, Michael T. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops. I spoke too soon. It works ... for about a third of the file. It
then loses its mind in the middle of a do-block (in a sizable chunk of code)
and doesn't regain it until the next code begin/end pairing ends.
There is a fix
Perhaps you could just highlight the small subset of LaTeX that is common in
.lhs files? This seems like it would be satisfactory in most cases.
On 05/06/07, Paul Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05/06/07, Michael T. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops. I spoke too soon. It works ...
