'Special' method highlighting

Doug Kearns djkea2 at mugca.its.monash.edu.au
Tue Aug 19 02:06:21 EDT 2003

On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 12:30:59AM +1000, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 12:43:55 AM, Doug wrote:
> > I've received some suggestions that certain 'special' methods should be
> > highlighted.
> > For example we currently highlight include but not extend, and others
> > have suggested highlighting new, attr*, private, protected, public,
> > puts, (s)printf, p, exit etc.
> private, protected, and public get my vote.  attr* is not a bad
> suggestion.  I'd leave all the others.

What about 'new'?
> > I think this is the wrong way to go, and that since they're all simply
> > methods of Kernel, Class, Module or Object, they shouldn't be treated
> > any differently.
> I think you can afford to be selective in the interest of readability.
> It's great that all these things are just methods, but Not All Methods
> Are Created Equal.  The elegance of the language shouldn't mean it has
> to be viewed in black and white ;)

Don't you believe in good and evil?
> They should be treated on a case by case basis, because highlighting
> *all* the "special" methods diminishes the value of highlighting *any*
> of them.
> > This would mean that we'd no longer highlight raise, fail, catch, throw,
> > require, include, load, loop, proc, lambda ...
> It would kinda suck if these weren't highlighted, in my blunt opinion.

OK, do you feel like making a more specific list? Are then any others


More information about the vim-ruby-devel mailing list