(brainstorm) munge(syntax_files, ASTs) => possibilities.

Nikolai Weibull mailing-lists.vim-ruby-development at rawuncut.elitemail.org
Fri Nov 4 07:08:16 EST 2005


Hugh Sasse wrote:

> So, my question is: Is it sensible to consider doing this sort of
> manipulation with ASTs?  Is it worth floating (a fleshed out?) version
> of the idea on vim-dev or elsewhere?  I'm thinking it might make it
> easier for the vim-file maintainers to re-use code from other files if
> the semantics can be encapsulated as well as the syntax, but I don't
> actually know where to start with this.

Hm, perhaps I never sent that mail to vim-dev, but I was certainly
thinking of the same thing.  Todo, String, Number, and Comment are often
similar between many syntaxes.  I can’t remember the exact reason I
opted not to send anything about it, but I think there was a good
reason.
        
        nikolai

-- 
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}


More information about the vim-ruby-devel mailing list