String interpolation highlighting (was Re: rubyFunction, rubyClass, and rubyModule no longer highlighted)

[Tim Pope]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 05:44:56PM +0100, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> On 2/26/07, Tim Pope <vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 08:56:47PM +1100, Doug Kearns wrote:
> > > FWIW, I suspect that some of the highlighting will break when in an
> > > interpolation region since it makes assumptions about what can appear
> > > before and after syntax 'elements'.  When I wrote these I didn't do so
> > > with this new addition in mind.  Have you come across any yet?
> >
> > No, but it didn't take much searching:
> >
> > "#{if true then 1 end}"
> >
> > However, syntax highlighting also fails on
> >
> > 3.times { if true then 1 end }
> >
> > Of these two, the latter is more serious because it affects future end
> > highlighting.
> >
> > Adding { to the monster regexp setting off if/unless does not fix
> > this.  Apparently Vim doesn't like backtracking through the beginning
> > of a region definition.  I'll investigate a bit more; let me know if
> > you have any ideas.
> 
> Uh, oh.  It sounds as if we're going overboard here.  Sorry, no ideas,
> just complaints.  Still, it's going to be very hard to match every
> weird part of the Ruby grammar, so optimizing for the common cases
> makes things a lot easier.  I'm sure there's code out there that
> actually contains the line "#{if true then 1 end}", but I don't see
> why we should try so damn hard to match it beyond matching the
> delimiters.  If you're silly enough to put a lot of junk in your
> string interpolations, then syntax highlighting isn't really going to
> help you much.

Agreed, regarding strings.  However, I thing my second example,

3.times { if true then 1 end }

is a bit more reasonable.  A fix for this would probably fix the
string interpolation for free.

Cheers,
Tim