'Special' method highlighting

Gavin Sinclair gsinclair at soyabean.com.au
Tue Aug 19 09:45:50 EDT 2003

On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 1:06:21 AM, Doug wrote:

> 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've never pined for a coloured 'new', but it's  in the "not a bad
suggestion" category, as opposed to 'puts' et al.
>> > 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?

Not really ;)
>> 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
> missing?

All right; I'll try to do that in the very near future.


More information about the vim-ruby-devel mailing list