Syntax highlighting regressions
dougkearns at gmail.com
Sun Jun 29 10:42:37 EDT 2008
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Tim Pope <vim-ruby-devel at tpope.info> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 12:26:08AM -0400, Tim Pope wrote:
>> > 3. It seems a minus sign preceding numbers is now being matched as
>> > part of the number highlight group. Is that intentional? As the plus
>> > sign is not being matched I assume it isn't. I did have a
>> > conversation with Bram about this years ago and he seemed to recommend
>> > excluding the sign chars as most of the syntax files do.
>> Yes it was intentional. I think it looks better and I might have been
>> doing it for some other side effect but I no longer remember so if you
>> want to strip it out, go for it.
> Err, to further clarify, the omission of "+" was unintentional. I've
> gone ahead and pulled out "-" highlighting for now but I'd really like
> to see it restored at a later point. Note that -(3) calls the unary -
> operator on 3 but -3 is a literal syntax that does not. So I think
> highlighting the "-" as part of the number makes sense.
I tend to agree, it's just that I recall having a conversation with
Bram about it and we decided to try and keep it consistent across the
syntax files. A quick check seems to suggest that most still don't
seem to highlight the sign char.
> One further request. As soon as the suite is in satisfactory
> condition, could we go ahead and email it to Bram and deal with the
> release notes and release after the fact?
Yes, that was my intention too. ;-)
I'll just give Mark an opportunity to respond first regarding that
rubycomplete.vim patch or, alternatively, we can just send the other
files in the interim if he's busy at the moment.
More information about the vim-ruby-devel