COBOL syntax and wrap strings

[RiaanPretoriusRIP]

COBOL syntax and wrap strings

[nyamatongwe]

Notepad++ get confused from the continuation and will show all the following lines as part of the string.

That doesn't happen for me. Both Notepad++ and SciTE show line 3 with the line number and initial " as part of the multi-line string but the following text is not.

[RiaanPretoriusRIP]

Not sure if your display is right. "AND" plus "TO" are keywords and shown in blue. But in this context, it is part of the text string, and should be in same color as first / previous line, all of that line in purple. Last line is again treated as text value.

[mpheath]

I'm not a COBOL programmer though some searching gave me some hints.

IMO with this issue, end the string at newline so the style does not continue into the next line. The next continued line will be ok.

I looked at some other issues to build a house of cards and see if the house topples over. Seems ok.

diff --git a/lexers/LexCOBOL.cxx b/lexers/LexCOBOL.cxx
index 39682f55..a93955f0 100644
--- a/lexers/LexCOBOL.cxx
+++ b/lexers/LexCOBOL.cxx
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ static int classifyWordCOBOL(Sci_PositionU start, Sci_PositionU end, /*WordList
     s[1] = '\0';
     getRange(start, end, styler, s, sizeof(s));
 
-    char chAttr = SCE_C_IDENTIFIER;
+    int chAttr = SCE_C_IDENTIFIER;
     if (isdigit(s[0]) || (s[0] == '.') || (s[0] == 'v')) {
         chAttr = SCE_C_NUMBER;
 		char *p = s + 1;
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static int classifyWordCOBOL(Sci_PositionU start, Sci_PositionU end, /*WordList
 			++p;
 		}
     }
-    else {
+    if (chAttr == SCE_C_IDENTIFIER) {
         if (a_keywords.InList(s)) {
             chAttr = SCE_C_WORD;
         }
@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ static void ColouriseCOBOLDoc(Sci_PositionU startPos, Sci_Position length, int i
             if (isCOBOLwordstart(ch) || (ch == '$' && IsASCII(chNext) && isalpha(chNext))) {
                 ColourTo(styler, i-1, state);
                 state = SCE_C_IDENTIFIER;
-            } else if (column == 6 && ch == '*') {
+            } else if (column == 6 && (ch == '*' || ch == '/')) {
             // Cobol comment line: asterisk in column 7.
                 ColourTo(styler, i-1, state);
                 state = SCE_C_COMMENTLINE;
@@ -255,7 +255,9 @@ static void ColouriseCOBOLDoc(Sci_PositionU startPos, Sci_Position length, int i
 
                 state = SCE_C_DEFAULT;
                 chNext = styler.SafeGetCharAt(i + 1);
-                if (ch == '"') {
+                if (column == 6 && (ch == '*' || ch == '/')) {
+                    state = SCE_C_COMMENTLINE;
+                } else if (ch == '"') {
                     state = SCE_C_STRING;
                 } else if (ch == '\'') {
                     state = SCE_C_CHARACTER;
@@ -292,6 +294,9 @@ static void ColouriseCOBOLDoc(Sci_PositionU startPos, Sci_Position length, int i
                 if (ch == '"') {
                     ColourTo(styler, i, state);
                     state = SCE_C_DEFAULT;
+                } else if (ch == '\r' || ch == '\n') {
+                    ColourTo(styler, i-1, state);
+                    state = SCE_C_DEFAULT;
                 }
             } else if (state == SCE_C_CHARACTER) {
                 if (ch == '\'') {

I could split up the fixes into individual fixes if preferred, if the code is regarded as ok as I'm not experienced with COBOL.

The folding is off in SciTE.properties as testlexers.exe would crash (Exception Code: 40000015) with the cobol test file (original or patched lexer). IDK why, maybe fold code has issue or the GCC compiler is at fault. Folding works in compiled Sc1.

Just noticed, test file should state that comment string style should not continue to next line. :(

gh229.zip

[nyamatongwe]

It makes future maintenance easier when the purpose and scope of each fix can be seen in separate commits.

I added a basic test file with a86f236.

[mpheath]

I added a basic test file with a86f236.

@nyamatongwe thanks, I have pulled down the changes.

I will break the fixes up so can be committed separately. Should be able to start with this issue first. I will create an issue for keywords starting with v not being styled and do the issue at SourceForge about the comment styling bug to close it. If you want me to open a duplicate issue at Github for the last open SourceForge issue, let me know.

I am not aware of any other COBOL lexer issues so hopefully will all be good. Oh, except for the folding crash by TestLexers.exe, still IDK.

Fix for only this issue:
229.zip

[nyamatongwe]

I am not aware of any other COBOL lexer issues

I found another with SCE_C_COMMENTDOC in the tests where its inconsistent with line ends so I dropped that test. Its just a matter of styling to i-1 but I didn't commit that as it may have interfered with your changes.

[mpheath]

I found another with SCE_C_COMMENTDOC in the tests where its inconsistent with line ends so I dropped that test. Its just a matter of styling to i-1 but I didn't commit that as it may have interfered with your changes.

I have done nothing with SCE_C_COMMENTDOC so it may have no impact on the source updates. I never found any info on comment doc and how it works so is a custom dialect or copied from another lexer, though it is only for the first column which seems intriguing. Could fix last and update tests... as needed I guess. Comments are the last of the series of fixes so could be updated.

I see it

{3}** comment
{0}
{11}abc{0}

The CR is before {0} and LF after. I'll look into it some more. Checked with TestLexer.exe, adding i-1 should be ok as no affect on the tests here.

Line tested to update to i-1:

lexilla/lexers/LexCOBOL.cxx

Line 282 in a86f236

ColourTo(styler, i, state);

The ColourTo above that line is also only i without the -1. Comment seems fine in the styled test files though.

[nyamatongwe]

Committed the changes.

and how it works so is a custom dialect or copied from another lexer

There are several indications of a dialect such as a '?' in column 1 indicating pre-processor. This lexer arrived with lexers for TAL and TACL languages associated with Tandem computers.
https://sourceforge.net/p/scintilla/feature-requests/531/

[mpheath]

There are several indications of a dialect such as a '?' in column 1 indicating pre-processor. This lexer arrived with lexers for TAL and TACL languages associated with Tandem computers. https://sourceforge.net/p/scintilla/feature-requests/531/

I cannot validate ? in column 1 either. It would only be in free form which has no continuation of lines so that starting with a symbol needs to be special with intention. So, it may do no harm if not valid.

In my previous comment ended with:

The ColourTo above that line is also only i without the -1. Comment seems fine in the styled test files though.

Correction... I should have specified SCE_C_COMMENTLINE seems fine.

SCE_C_COMMENT is in the line above I referred to with the ColourTo and is never assigned to state or used anywhere else so could be considered as dead unused code. So concern of i-1 should also be there is probably none.

lexilla/lexers/LexCOBOL.cxx

Line 274 in 70dff47

} else if (state == SCE_C_COMMENT) {

[nyamatongwe]

Added 2a90020 to style both \r and \n the same for SCE_C_COMMENTDOC and SCE_C_COMMENT even though SCE_C_COMMENT is unreachable. It may have been meant for one of the SCE_C_COMMENTLINE states.

Also fixed up indentation to only use spaces with b729628 and fixed some Cppcheck scope can be decreased warnings with 4af9e3e.

[RiaanPretoriusRIP]

Sorry, I found another issue with comments on COBOL, sorry for realizing it last week.

RP62b *    IF XREPNR = 768 
EI53a *       IF COUNTRY = "R"
EI53a *          CHAIN "VIP768.ACU" USING XAREA
EI53a *       END-IF
EI53a *    END-IF.
RP62b *    IF XREPNR = 769 
PIR53A*       IF COUNTRY = "R"
PIR53A*          CHAIN "VIP769.ACU" USING XAREA
PIR53A*    END-IF.

A star / asterisk in column 7 indicates that whatever is in the line is all commented. If there are something in column 1 to 5 it is treated correctly. However, when column 6 also got any text in it, then the line is not treated as a comment.

[nyamatongwe]

Sorry, I found another issue with comments

See #231.