Re: Pluma's syntax highlighting
On Mon 13 Jan 2020 at 07:03:05 (-0600), Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 01/13/2020 06:13 AM, Jeremy Nicoll wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, at 11:52, Richard Owlett wrote:
> >
> > > I was looking for a description of what Pluma was trying to accomplish
> > > by their highlighting rules.
> >
> > Do you understand the purpose of syntax highlighting (in general)?
>
> Yes. Its specific goal is to aid a programmer WHILE coding.
This is contradicted by the reference I gave you, and by links
contained in that wiki page.
> However, I'm trying to understand a vendor supplied bash script.
Exactly. The syntax highlighting is designed to accelerate and improve
your comprehension of the source code.
> One reference explicitly said that Pluma associates a "sh" extension
> with the text being a bash script {matches my use case}.
That seems fair enough, with the proviso that "bash script" is
sometimes used loosely to mean "shell script".
> > [snip]
> > That apart, it would help enormously if you posted a screenshot of what
> > you're seeing, and some explanation of why you think the colouring is
> > wrong.
> >
>
> I have no reason to suspect there are errors in the code.
> While initially working through the code, the chosen highlighting
> seemed consistent as how I interpreted the code.
>
> There are cases where I would expect different keywords to have the
> same highlighting -- they didn't.
>
> The implication is that Pluma's highlighting is attempting to convey
> information that I am not receiving.
>
> Therefore I need to know what Pluma's goal was.
Once again, I can tell you nothing about Pluma.
What I can say is that all keywords do not have the same function in a
program, and the highlighting could be expressing that. For example,
some keywords might be reserved, others built-in, yet others involved
in the flow of control: all are possible reasons to switch to a
different colour.
As so often, you give no specific examples of your problem, and just
seem to want to vacuum up as many references as possible, references
that must be tailored to *your* specific case.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: