the verbosity is partially why I want a datatype scope. That said... how about:
meta.data.(array|hash|record) - used only for in-code data
descriptions (literal arrays, etc)
On 8/22/06, thomas Aylott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Aug 22, 2006, at 9:40 AM, Mietek Bąk wrote:
On 22/8/2006, at 15:24, David Powers wrote:
yeah... I kind of want a datastructure scope, but I think that the
punctuation combined with some minor standardization in the meta scope
second level (meta.array, meta.hash, etc) will probably serve.
I'm using meta.structure.list, meta.structure.tuple and
meta.structure.binary in my Erlang bundle.
--
(desp)
We really should standardize something for the contents of stuff.
I'm currently using 'meta.group' for the contents of {}, () & [].
I'd be perfectly happy with making it
meta.group.array
meta.group.hash
meta.structure.array
meta.structure.hash
or whatever.
But meta.array and meta.hash is no good because then you'd have to know of
and use all of them if you wanted to simply color them all at once.
thomas Aylott — subtleGradient — CrazyEgg
_______________________________________________
textmate-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate-dev
_______________________________________________
textmate-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate-dev
