[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Standardizing tree-sitter fontification features
From: |
Yuan Fu |
Subject: |
Re: Standardizing tree-sitter fontification features |
Date: |
Fri, 2 Dec 2022 17:12:20 -0800 |
[Addint emacs-devel back]
> On Nov 25, 2022, at 3:20 AM, Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Right now we have:
> [...]
>> comment
>
> What about treating doc-comments as a separate case?
> (May also want to fontify various parts inside, such as doc mark-up elements.)
That makes me wonder what should we do with string & docstrings &
string-interpolation. Should we make them all separate features, or put them
all in a single “string” feature, or have some major mode variable to turn
things on/off?
My thoughts:
- docstring is pretty standard for a given language, so they can probably
enabled by default and be part of the string feature.
- string interpolation could be part of string feature, but since “string”
feature is enabled at pretty low fontification level, I decided to make it
separate, and only enabled it in higher fontification levels.
- doc-comment seems rather non-standards, and could even be different from
project to project. So I tend to think it should be turned on/off by a major
mode variable in major modes that support this feature. And user can
enable/disable it with dir-local or file-local variables.
>
> Otherwise I mostly agree with the proposal but fear that it may result in an
> overly busy scheme. Colour only really helps when it helps highlighting
> structure, not contents.
I agree, that’s why we don’t enable all the features by default. The default
fontification should be pretty sane (IMO).
Yuan
- Re: Standardizing tree-sitter fontification features,
Yuan Fu <=