[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#74307: 30.0.92; emacs-lisp font-locking word regexp
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#74307: 30.0.92; emacs-lisp font-locking word regexp |
Date: |
Thu, 05 Dec 2024 09:38:48 +0200 |
> From: Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net>
> Cc: Roland Winkler <winkler@gnu.org>, Stefan Monnier
> <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>, 74307@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2024 09:20:16 +0200
>
> >> (setq foo "\\<foo\\>")
> >>
> >> The part "foo\\" of the string "\\<foo\\>" will get
> >> font-lock-variable-name-face, which looks odd.
> >>
> >> I believe, this is due to a clause in lisp-mode.el that says
> >>
> >> ;; Words inside \\[], \\<>, \\{} or \\`' tend to be for
> >> ;; `substitute-command-keys'.
> >>
> >> But this assumption is not always correct, in particular if ">" is
> >> preceded by "\\", which happens when constructing regexps.
> >
> > I believe you are saying that in
> >
> > (,(rx "\\\\" (or (seq "<" (group-n 1 lisp-mode-symbol) ">")
> > (seq "{" (group-n 1 lisp-mode-symbol) "}")))
> > (1 font-lock-variable-name-face prepend))
> >
> > we should use something like the below instead?
> >
> > (,(rx "\\\\" (or (seq "<" (group-n 1 lisp-mode-symbol) (not "\\\\")
> > ">")
> > (seq "{" (group-n 1 lisp-mode-symbol) (not "\\\\")
> > "}"))
>
> The problem is that this removes highlighting from the last character
> because it doesn't get into the group:
>
> (rx (seq "[" (group-n 1 lisp-mode-symbol) (not "\\") "]"))
> => "\\[\\(?1:\\(?:\\w\\|\\s_\\|\\\\.\\)+\\)[^\\]]"
>
> A possible solution is to move (not "\\") inside the group:
>
> (rx (seq "[" (group-n 1 (seq lisp-mode-symbol (not "\\"))) "]"))
> => "\\[\\(?1:\\(?:\\w\\|\\s_\\|\\\\.\\)+[^\\]\\)]"
>
> But this removes highlighting completely from the reported case of
> (setq foo "\\<foo\\>"). However, I guess it should not have highlighting
> anyway because this is an incorrect syntax of `substitute-command-keys'
> that should match only \\[], \\<>, \\{} or \\`' without the second \\
Sorry, I don't understand: the change which was supposed to fix this
was already installed. If you are saying it caused regressions, could
you please show a recipe for reproducing those regressions?