Apologies in advance; I'm not sure if this is the correct avenue for this kind of discussion.
I think Vim would stand to reap extraordinary benefits from a greater focus on built-in syntax-related functionality and the decoupling of existing syntax features from other features. To illustrate, I ask you to consider the following examples: - The option 'define' is a pattern that matches a macro definition. There exists a syntax/highlight group `Define` that could be used for this. - The option 'isident' is a pattern that matches an identifier. It is used in conjunction with 'define' and serves a variety of purposes, to a fault: changing the value of this option can break things that should not (or do not have to) strictly be related to identifiers. It's also used for "\i" in patterns. There exists a syntax/highlight group `Identifier` that could be used for this. - The option 'iskeyword' defines a "word", which is used for too many things to list -- among them, the `<C-]>` and `g]` normal mode commands, which are used for jumping to the tags under the cursor. Unfortunately, tags are typically syntax items which may or may not constitute a "word". Changing the definition of 'iskeyword', even on a filetype-specific basis, is both overreaching and unsatisfactory; depending on syntactical context, the pattern for an expected identifier at the cursor's location may be widely different. Matching a subset of syntactical items known to exist in tags (identifiers for example) could yield better results. - As both a user and script writer, I have often wanted to search for matches based not only on the composition of characters but also syntactical context. The `gd` and `gD` normal commands, for example, do a rudimentary search to attempt to find the definition of the `<cword>`, but often perform inadequately in non-C languages. A search with syntactical criteria could make this far more accurate. What I'm suggesting is a concerted effort to further develop and build upon Vim's existing syntax features in general. I posit that this will encourage and foster better ftplugins and, ultimately, a more robust and responsive interface to users' code at a decreased development cost to scripters. Even only what I've explicitly outlined represents a great deal of work, and there must no doubt be a great deal of discussion before work may be considered, as well, so what I submit to you all is a request only for that discussion; I would love to see greater support for this in my editor of choice, and I don't think I'm alone. Let's talk about it. Thanks for reading, and sorry again if this proselytism is misplaced. -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
