"\\" breaks syntax coloring

[ccw-ide]

"\\" breaks syntax coloring

[laurentpetit]

Comment #1 originally posted by laurentpetit on 2009-10-14T21:33:32.000Z:

What was the reason why the rules based editor was abandoned?

[laurentpetit]

Comment #2 originally posted by laurentpetit on 2009-10-14T21:58:08.000Z:

Several reasons :

1/ I wanted to use antlr (at that time), because:

• I already had written the antlr grammar for the lexical stuff
• I also had an embryonic set of classes for plugging antlr (but in the final run
  it was almost entirely rewritten)
• I wanted to continue learning antlr (we're using antlr at work, but not directly
  me), and had in mind to use antlr to do the static parsing of the source code (the
  syntax stuff) => for being able to preserve comments, the exact way things are
  written by the user (no reader macro transformation), etc.

2/ I was annoyed to have to write/maintain rules based stuff for syntax coloring, and
another grammar description for the other stuff => the antlr way had the advantage of
being able to share the lexer part

3/ I wanted to be able to do some syntax coloring variations based not only on
lexicographic tokens, but also some syntax (such as the rainbow parens), and I had
the feeling doing this with rules based stuff may not be the right way (if feasible
at all)

I may have been wrong, I'm pretty sure you'll allow me to see where my feelings were
right or wrong, thanks in advance, laurent

[laurentpetit]

Comment #3 originally posted by laurentpetit on 2009-10-14T21:59:33.000Z:

An important point to note:

Christophe Grand is working on a pure clojure parser library, (named parsley,
available on github), which will have the interesting property of allowing
incremental parsing.

I intend in the middle run to use this for ccw.

[laurentpetit]

Comment #4 originally posted by laurentpetit on 2009-10-15T21:12:47.000Z:

Thanks for extensive answer. I was just curious about the history of these to
approaches. The parsley library sounds interesting as well.

[laurentpetit]

Comment #5 originally posted by laurentpetit on 2009-11-01T15:44:06.000Z:

related to issue # 10

[laurentpetit]

Comment #6 originally posted by laurentpetit on 2009-11-17T19:38:38.000Z:

<empty>

[laurentpetit]

Comment #7 originally posted by laurentpetit on 2009-11-17T20:32:31.000Z:

<empty>

[laurentpetit]

Comment #8 originally posted by laurentpetit on 2009-11-27T22:41:52.000Z:

<empty>